AUDITOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, ROOM 1819
315Dbt,Dlt.(:>7T131 BOSTON 02108
A. JOSEPH DeNUCCI (617)727-6200
AuorroR
NO. 97-4046-3
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT
ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
OF THE MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION
REFORM ACT OF 1993
JUNE 30, 1993 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1996
OFFICIAL AUDIT REPORT
AUG 0 4 1997
ISSUED BY THE
Department of the State Auditor
97-4046-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Over the past four decades, the primary emphasis of public
education in the United States, and particularly Massachusetts,
has focused on providing an equal educational opportunity for
all students. Massachusetts, which has historically been at the
forefront in implementing reforms to its public education
system, has over the past two decades enacted two significant
pieces of education reform legislation. The first of these.
Chapter 188 of the Acts and Resolves of 1985, provided
approximately $1.8 billion in additional funding to cities and
towns for educational purposes through various grants.
Subsequent to the enactment of this legislation, the need for
additional reform was reinforced by a Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in 1993 entitled McDuffy v.
Secretary of Education. In its decision, the SJC stated that
the Commonwealth's constitutional duty to provide an education
to all children enrolled in Massachusetts public schools was not
being fulfilled. Consequently, the SJC adopted from the Supreme
Court of Kentucky broad guidelines regarding what it means to
educate children. Partly in response to this anticipated SJC
decision, and a report issued by the Massachusetts Business
Alliance for Education entitled "Every Child a Winner," in June
1993 the state Legislature enacted the second piece of education
reform legislation. Chapter 71 of the Acts and Resolves of 1993,
known as the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) of 1993.
MERA was designed to provide statewide systematic reform for
Massachusetts public schools and may provide up to an additional
$1.5 billion to cities and towns.
For our audit we examined various aspects of MERA. Our specific
audit objectives were to: (1) obtain an understanding of
education reform in Massachusetts, primarily focusing on MERA;
(2) assess the effect MERA has had and will have on public
education within the Commonwealth; (3) determine whether the
process used by the state's Department of Education (DOE) to
develop and implement MERA was efficient, effective, and in
accordance with the requirements specified in the MERA statute;
(4) determine whether controls were in place (e.g., monitoring
mechanisms) to measure or assess the impact of programmatic and
financial objectives of MERA; and (5) make recommendations for
facilitating education reform within the Commonwealth.
AUDIT RESULTS
1. Weaknesses in the Implementation and Administration of MERA Have
Provided Inadequate Assurance That the Projected $1.5 Billion
Increase in State Aid Provided under This Legislation Will
Improve Public Education; During the past 11 years,
Massachusetts has enacted two significant laws designed to
improve the quality of public education within the
Commonwealth. The first law. Chapter 188 of the Acts and
Resolves of 1985, provided approximately $1.8 billion in grants
to cities and towns for at-risk students, teachers and
-4046-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
administrators, curriculum enhancement, and community
activities. The second law, MERA, which was enacted in June
1993, may provide up to an additional $1.5 billion to provide
statewide systematic reforms to Massachusetts public schools.
Although these legislative acts have helped public schools in
the Commonwealth fiscally by providing them with additional
state funding, our review of MERA revealed a number of
operational and administrative problems relative to its
implementation and administration. Specifically, a systematic
approach to problem solving was not utilized in the
implementation of MERA.
For example, DOE did not establish a baseline measurement from
which to assess any improvements in educational outcomes that
may be derived from this legislation, and DOE does not plan to
begin full assessment testing until 1999. Therefore, the
Commonwealth may not be able to accurately assess the impact of
MERA for several years.
We also found that, because DOE has not established monitoring
and feedback mechanisms to monitor MERA-funded expenditures,
there is inadecpaate assurance that the additional funding
provided under MERA is being expended in the most economical and
efficient manner and in accordance with legislative objectives.
This lack of a systems approach, which should include
assessment, monitoring, and feedback mechanisms, has prevented
DOE from determining the effectiveness of previous reform
initiatives. For example, DOE was not able to explain what
impact the approximately $1.8 billion in state funds provided to
cities and towns under Chapter 188 of the Acts of 1985 has had
on improving the quality of public education within the
Commonwealth .
In addition, there is no direct correlation between the
additional funding provided under MERA and the outcomes relative
to its objectives. As a result, school systems are able to use
these funds in any way they deem necessary. In fact, a recent
audit of the Lawrence Public Schools (LPS), (Audit No.
97-6003-9) issued by the Office of the State Auditor determined
that LPS was expending a significant amount of MERA funds on
questionable items while Lawrence High School lost its
accredidation. Moreover, MERA does not require specific
training for educators relative to the requirements of MERA.
According to DOE and Massachusetts Teachers Association
officials, although MERA will require teachers to introduce new
concepts and teaching methods within the classrooms, the law
does not require any teacher training specific to these new
methods. Consequently, there is inadec[uate assurance that these
new methods and techniques are being effectively utilized in the
classrooms .
Finally, although DOE officials believe that the adoption of the
Common Core of Learning (CCL) and Academic Standards are the
heart of MERA's programmatic objectives, the adoption of the CCL
97-4046-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
Page
and Academic Standards are not mandated by this legislation.
Therefore, although the intent of MERA is to effect true and
meaningful education reform within the Commonwealth, some of its
most significant initiatives are not mandated and do not have to
be adopted by all school systems. Also, the creation of all the
curriculum frameworks and the development of academic standards
have yet to be completed despite the fact that this legislation
was enacted almost four years ago.
Because of these and other problems relative to education reform
initiatives, the Commonwealth cannot be assured that the
approximately $1.5 billion in additional state funding that may
be provided to cities and towns under MERA will have a
significant and intended impact on public education within the
state.
2 . DOE Has Not Fullv Complied with the Legislative Intent of MERA Re- 43
lative to Time and Learning; MERA requires the Board of
Education to prepare a plan to extend the time during which
students attend school to reflect current norms in other
industrialized nations. In response to this requirement, the
board created the Massachusetts Commission on Time and Learning
to establish appropriate plans. In September 1994, the
commission issued a report that made a recommendation to amend
DOE regulations and redefine what constituted instructional
hours. The amended regulations would have increased the amount
of instructional time students would receive in core subjects
(e.g., math, science, English, history and social studies,
foreign languages, and the arts). In addition, the commission
recommended excluding early release days from the annual 180
school day minimum requirement. However, according to DOE
officials, due to opposition from non-core-subject teachers
(e.g., health, physical education, and home economics) and other
groups, these recommendations were never implemented.
Therefore, the requirement of this section of MERA to change the
time and learning structure of our public school system has not
been met.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
APPENDIXES
55
A.
Graphs:
1.
2.
Chapter 188 Grant Expenditures: 1986-1993
National SAT Scores vs. National Per-Pupil
55
56
3.
Expenditures in Constant 1993 Dollars, 1970-1993
International Comparison of 1991 Science Test Scores
57
4.
for 13-Year-Olds
International Comparison of 1991 Math Test Scores
58
for 13-year-Olds
97-4046-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
B. Organizations Contacted during the Audit 59
C. School Systems Surveyed 60
D. Description of DOE's Objectives Relative to HERA 61
E. Description of Aid Provided under MERA 64
F. Bibliography of Referenced Publications 65
97-4046-3
-1-
INTRODUCTION
Background
The history of education in Massachusetts has been shaped by various
social, political, and economic factors. Throughout the 19th century,
education policy was primarily a function of state and local government. With
the exception of vocational education and land grants, the federal government
was not involved in education policy until the 1940s. Since World War II, the
issue of improving education within our society has been addressed by the
federal government on a continual basis. Specific measures taken by the
federal government to enhance the educational proficiency of the general
population over the past five decades include the following:
o In 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act,
(Public Law 78-346), known more commonly as the "GI Bill." This
legislation granted a government- funded college education to every
qualified veteran.
o The National School Lunch Act was passed (Public Law 79-396) in 1946
to ensure that all children are properly nourished.
o During the 1950s there were concerns within the United States that the
Soviet Union was winning the technology race due to manpower shortages
in the science and engineering fields. This led to the passage of the
National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-864), which
provided curriculum reform and funding for science, mathematics,
modern foreign languages, and other critical subjects. Total funding
for this Act totaled $300 million over a four-year period.
o The National Science Foundation was established by the federal
government in 1950 as an independent agency concerned with promoting a
national science policy by supporting basic research and education.
During the 1960s, educational policy within the United States shifted from
global competition to equal educational opportunity. President Johnson's "War
on Poverty" during the mid-1960s produced a number of initiatives to equalize
educational opportunity for all school-age students, as follows:
o The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452) created the
Head Start Program, which provides development opportunities and
nutrition supplementation for children from low-income families. In
1966, $96 million was spent on Head Start programs nationwide.
Funding for this program had grown to $3.3 billion in 1994.
97-4046-3
-2-
o The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 89-10) was
passed in 1965. This Act provided financial assistance to local
educational agencies for the education of children from low-income
families, supplemental educational services, research and training,
and grants to strengthen state departments of education. In 1966, the
federal government appropriated approximately $1.2 billion to fund
this Act. Of this amount, approximately $1 billion was for the
education of children from low-income families. Funding for this Act
has grown from $1.2 billion in 1966 to over $6.1 billion in 1992.
While the federal government began to refocus its educational policy, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts began making significant changes in the state's
public school system. The most significant changes during the last three
decades include the following:
o The Willis-Harrington Act (Chapter 572 of the Acts and Resolves of
1965) overhauled Massachusetts public schools. This law, entitled an
Act to Improve and Extend Educational Facilities in the Commonwealth,
established three boards: a Board of Education, (BOE), a Board of
Higher Education, and an Advisory Council on Education. Some of the
requirements placed upon the BOE were to: establish minimum
educational standards for all courses; provide a common center for the
development, evaluation, and adaptation of educational innovation;
establish a minimum length of the school day and a minimum number of
days for the school year; and establish maximum pupil-teacher ratios
for classes in public schools.
o Chapter 14 of the Acts and Resolves of 1966 (Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 70) established a 3% state sales tax and called for "the
equalization of educational opportunity in the public schools of the
Commonwealth and equalization of the burden of the cost of school
support to the respective cities or towns." This law established the
Massachusetts Local Aid Fund, a separate fund used solely for state
assistance to cities and towns.
o In 1971, Massachusetts passed a Transitional Bilingual Education Act,
Chapter 1005 of the Acts and Resolves of 1971. Under this law, every
student has the right to be taught in his or her native tongue until
the student has sufficient command of the English language (minimum of
three years). The state expended a total of $18,433,945 to cities and
towns from 1972 through 1986 in support of bilingual education
programs (this is independent of any local funding for bilingual
education) .
o In 1972, Massachusetts passed the nation's first Special Education
Law, Chapter 766 of the Acts of 1972 (Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 71B) . This Act provided for a flexible and uniform system for
delivering special education services and a nondiscriminatory system
for evaluating needs.
o Chapter 636 of the Acts from 1974, known as the Racial Imbalance Act,
required cities and towns to maintain an equal or proportionate
balance of white students and non-white students within each school.
97-4046-3
-3-
Transportation costs incurred by cities and towns due to this law are
reimbursed by the Commonwealth; which spent $214 million on Racial
Imbalance programs from 1969 through 1994.
o The concept of Magnet schools was born out of the need to desegregate
schools. State law defines a school as racially imbalanced when it
has more than 50% minority students. Magnet schools are publicly
funded schools designed to provide distinctive or specialized
curricula ranging from performing arts to computer sciences and
engineering. Between 1975 and 1981, the federal government spent up
to $30 million annually for Magnet schools, and Massachusetts
committed a total of $223 million in support of Magnet schools from
1975 through 1994.
o Chapter 367 of the Acts and Resolves of 1978 provided $16 million in
funding to school districts throughout the state. This funding was
intended for the following uses: reimbursement to towns for costs
incurred under the program for the elimination of racial imbalance,
grants for the cost of providing Magnet school programs, and grants to
establish equal education improvement funds.
o In 1985, the Massachusetts Legislature attempted to reform education
with the passage of Chapter 188 of the Acts and Resolves of 1985.
This Act provided grant programs totaling over $1.8 billion from 1986
through 1994 to cities and towns to be used in the following areas:
(a) Opportunities for At-Risk Students: These grants were designed to
be available for early childhood programs, districts where the
per-pupil expenditure is less than 85% of the state average,
districts with a high number of students who test below the
minimum standard, and drop-out prevention programs.
(b) Support for Teachers and Administrators: The purpose of these
grants was to raise teachers' salaries to a minimum level of
$18,000 to $20,000 and encourage teachers to expand their
responsibilities in such areas as curriculum and professional
development. Grants of up to $2,500 per year were provided to
deserving teachers (Horace Mann Grants) and for additional
compensation to teachers for professional development.
(c) Curriculum Enhancement: The purpose of these discretionary grants
was to fund instructional materials and computer software,
educational technology, comprehensive health programs, gifted and
talented programs, and the development and implementation of
science projects in collaboration with local museums.
(d) Community and Parent Involvement; This grant program funded up to
$15 per pupil to schools that established a school improvement
council .
In 1981, the U.S. Department of Education formed the National Commission
on Excellence in Education. In 1983 this commission issued a report entitled
"A Nation At Risk," which made the following statement relative to public
education:
97-4046-3
-4-
If an unfriendly foreign power attempted to impose on America the
mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well
have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this
to happen to ourselves. ... We have, in effect, been committing an
act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
The report identified a series of risks to our society which, according to
the report, "threaten our very future as a nation and a people." The most
significant concerns raised in this report included the following:
o The average achievement of high school students on most standardized
tests was lower than 26 years earlier, when Sputnik was launched.
o The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), nationally and
for Massachusetts, demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963
to 1980. Average SAT verbal scores fell over 50 points, and average
mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.
o Business and military leaders expressed discontent over requirements
to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and training
programs in such basic skills as reading, writing, spelling, and
computation.
o There was a decline in the average tested achievement level of
students graduating from college.
o International comparisons of student achievement completed in the
preceding decade revealed that, on 19 academic tests, American
students were never first or second and, in comparison with other
industrialized nations, were last seven times.
The report also made several general recommendations, including:
o Academic requirements should be strengthened, and all students
graduating from high school should have a solid foundation in the
following five subjects: English, mathematics, science, social
studies, and computer science. These subjects were labeled as the
"new basics. "
o Schools should adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and higher
expectations for academic performance and student conduct.
o More time should be devoted to learning the new basics.
In addition to legislation being enacted on the federal and state level to
reform public education, various groups attempted to address problems within
public education. For example, in 1988 a group of Massachusetts businessmen
formed the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE), whose
objective was to improve public education by providing students with the
97-4046-3
-5-
knowledge and skills necessary for them to be productive, informed citizens.
In 1991, MBAE issued a report entitled "Every Child a Winner" that identified
inadequate funding as one of several problems within public education and
recommended the following:
o Update and broadly communicate goals of education in Massachusetts.
o Develop performance indicators at state and local levels.
o Ensure preschool education for all three- and four-year-old children.
o Develop a comprehensive parent outreach/education program.
o Extend the amount of school time (by 20% in some cases).
o Improve the teacher workforce through professional development,
alternative certification, and tenure reform.
In 1989, President Bush and the nation's governors convened in
Charlottesville, Virginia for an education summit to establish a series of
education goals to be reached by the year 2000. The summit members
recommended seven goals, which became the basis of the President's proposed
"America 2000 Goals" legislation. Although this legislation was not enacted,
in 1994 President Clinton, who was an active participant in the 1989 summit,
proposed similar legislation entitled "Goals 2000 Educate America." This
legislation, which was signed into law (Public Law 103-227) on March 31, 1994,
contains eight goals, including:
o Increase the high school graduation rate to at least 90%.
o Prepare students to demonstrate competency in challenging subjects and
instill responsible citizenship.
o Strive to be first in the world in math and sciences.
o Increase adult literacy.
o Ensure teacher programs for continued improvement of their
professional skills.
In addition to such goals, the Act created a National Education Standards
Improvement Council, which is responsible for developing model academic and
testing standards for the states to follow. This Act also created a National
97-4046-3
-6-
Skill Standards Board, which is responsible for examining the work skills
needed for certain jobs and developing skill standards for occupations. The
passage of this legislation signified the first time in the history of the
United States that the federal government directly undertook the task of
establishing academic standards.
The need for improvement in the equity of public education was reinforced
by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in 1993 entitled
McDuffv V. Secretary of Education. As stated in this case, the Massachusetts
Constitution imposes an enforceable duty on the state, as follows:
To provide education in the public schools for the children there
enrolled, whether they be rich or poor and without regard to the
fiscal capacity of the community or district in which such children
live. It shall be declared also that the constitutional duty is not
being currently fulfilled by the Commonwealth. Additionally, while
local governments may be required, in part, to support public
schools, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to take such
steps as may be required. . . to devise a plan and sources of funds
sufficient to meet the constitutional mandate.
In its decision, the SJC adopted from the Supreme Court of Kentucky broad
guidelines regarding what it means to educate children. These guidelines
consist of the following capabilities:
o Sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to
function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization.
o Sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to
enable students to make informed choices.
o Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and
physical wellness.
o Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate
his or her cultural and historical heritage.
o Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either
academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and
pursue life's work intelligently.
o Sufficient level of academic or vocational skills to enable public
school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in
surrounding states, in academics or in the job market.
97-4046-3
-7-
At the time of" the SJC decision, the state Legislature was debating
legislation relative to reforming public education in Massachusetts and in
June 1993 enacted Chapter 71 of the Acts and Resolves of 1993, the
Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) . MERA, which was designed to
provide statewide systematic reform for Massachusetts public schools, consists
of 105 sections that proposed changes to the state's current public education
system in the following seven areas:
o Educational personnel
o Education programs
o Local governance
o School finance
o State governance
o Policies affecting students
o Technical changes in regulations and other legislation
In October 1993, the Department of Education (DOE), which was designated
by this legislation as the primary agency responsible for MERA's
implementation, issued an Education Reform Implementation Plan, consisting of
54 financial and programmatic objectives that it deemed necessary to satisfy
the requirements of MERA (See Appendix D). The goal of the implementation
plan's financial objectives (five of the 54) was to develop and administer a
fair and equitable system of school finance. In order to accomplish this
task, MERA provides state funds (subject to appropriation) to communities
through six local aid programs: Foundation, Equity, Overburden, Minimum, New
Region, and School Choice Aid (see Appendix E). These six sources of aid, as
well as local tax revenues committed to public education, are incorporated
into the Foundation Formula Funding Program (Foundation Budget).
The Foundation Budget is the most significant fiscal objective of MERA and
DOE'S implementation plan. According to MERA, a foundation budget is a budget
that identifies the minimum funds necessary to effectively operate a
particular public school system. The development of a Foundation Budget for
each district is a systematic process based on estimated statewide average
97-4046-3
-8-
per-pupil operating costs. The intent of this initiative is for every school
system to reach a predetermined level of spending by the year 2000. State aid
is systematically distributed to school systems to assist them in reaching the
Foundation Budget's spending level.
The Foundation Budget concept was first introduced in MBAE's 1991 report
and later adopted by the Legislature. Each year, the state increases its
share of state aid to education in an effort to ensure that every school
system meets its Foundation Budget total by the year 2000. The following
table identifies increased state aid from 1994 through 1996 and projected
increases from 1997 through the year 2000 as a result of the Foundation Budget:
Fiscal Year Increase in State Aid
(in Millions)
1994 $ 143.9
1995 189.8
1996 201.1
1997 229.8
1998 228.5
1999 274.9
2000 289.3
Total $1.565.3
In addition, DOE has developed 49 progreimmatic objectives within its
implementation plan. The programmatic objectives of DOE ' s plan attempt to
address three main goals:
o New programs and standards that will ensure high achievement for all
students.
o A governance structure that encourages innovation and accountability
at all levels.
o Standards and processes that will enhance the quality,
professionalism, and accountability of all education personnel.
According to DOE, these goals, including the need for a fair and equitable
system of school finance, was the intent of MERA. The most significant
programmatic objectives include the development of a Common Core of Learning
(CCL), Curriculum Frameworks, Academic Standards, and a Student Assessment
Program.
97-4046-3
-9-
The CCL is a set of broad learning goals developed through public forums
and seminars throughout Massachusetts by the Common Core of Learning
Commission, which was established by Board of Education. The CCL is
considered to be the basis for what students should be taught in Massachusetts.
The Curriculum Freuneworks are subject guides developed through DOE to
assist teachers in teaching the core academic subjects. These frameworks
reflect the goals within the CCL.
The development of Academic Standards will be based on the content of the
CCL. According to the implementation plan, the Academic Standards are at the
heart of education reform. Academic Standards developed in Massachusetts and
nationally cover a broad range of philosophies. Specifically, Content
Standards establish what should be learned in various subject areas and
emphasize critical-thinking and problem-solving strategies; Performance
Standards define the levels of learning that are considered satisfactory;
Opportunity-to-Learn Standards pertain to the conditions and resources
necessary to give students an equal chance to meet the Performance Standards;
and World Class Standards are based on the content presented to and the
expectations held for students in other countries. These standards will be
used to better ensure that students will have sufficient skills to compete in
the global economy.
The Student Assessment Program is essential in determining the success of
MERA. According to the law, student assessment tests will be designed to
measure outcomes and results regarding student performance and to improve the
effectiveness of curriculum and instruction.
Despite the increased financial commitment to improving education over the
past 30 years, including MERA, various academic outcome measures seem to
indicate a general decline in the performance of certain groups of students.
For example, average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores have declined by a
97-4046-3
-10-
total of 73 points "from 1960 to 1994. Furthermore, according to a survey
conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, American students are not competing well with other industrialized
nations. As detailed in Appendix A, American students ranked 13th in
comparison with students of 14 industrialized nations (participating in the
survey) in math scores and 12th out of 14 in science scores, despite that it
ranks among the highest in per-pupil spending.
The causes of the decline in public education outcome measures have been
largely debated, and there has never been a consensus on what they are or the
most effective and efficient way to resolve these issues. One major obstacle
in addressing the problems public education is defining the role of the public
school. Although some common needs exist, diversity from one community to the
next requires each school system to define its own role within the community.
According to officials from the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) , one
of the main problems with our public education system is this lack of
consensus regarding the mission of our public schools. According to these
officials, society has not identified the role or mission of our public
schools, and until this mission is clear, it will be very difficult to
successfully reform education.
Although there is no clear consensus, many education professionals have
expressed opinions as to the problems within our public school system. For
example, in 1989 Dr. John Silber, then President of Boston University,
published a book entitled "Straight Shooting," in which he stated:
Once our common schools, even in unpromising backwoods environments,
were capable of producing not only an Abraham Lincoln but a
well-educated, literate population fully capable of following the
Lincoln-Douglas debates. Now the schools turn out millions of
functionally illiterate graduates effectively deprived of any
cultural heritage.
In this book. Dr. Silber identifies the following five critical issues
that, in his opinion, contribute most to the problems associated with our
97-4046-3
-11-
educational system: decline of the family, loss of respect for teachers, loss
of moral understanding and moral focus in teaching young people, the threat to
effective education posed by bilingual education programs, and the assumption
that funds will solve these problems.
Albert Shanker, former President of the American Federation of Teachers, a
nonprofit organization that represents approximately 900,000 teachers
nationwide, identified four essential elements necessary for effective school
systems: student discipline, academic standards, external assessments, and
incentives for hard work. Mr. Shanker claims that other industrialized
countries have successful public school systems because they have these
elements.
Dr. William Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, stated in his
book, "The Devaluing of America." that he did not believe that inadequate
funding was a major problem in the quality of public education, stating:
The problem with American education is not that it is underfunded,
but that it was under-accountable and underproductive. Over a twenty
five year period, we were spending more and more money, and getting
fewer and fewer results. In many cases, we were throwing good money
after bad. . . (schools] must give greater attention to a sound
common curriculum emphasizing English, history, geography, math, and
science.
Finally, the Federal Commission on Time and Learning, which was
established in 1991 to study the relationship between time and learning in
American public schools, issued a report in 1994 entitled "Prisoners of
Time." In this report, the commission expressed concern over the number of
hours American students spend in the classroom versus students of other
industrialized countries (e.g., American students spend less than half the
amount of time on core academic subjects than students in Japan, France, and
Germany) and emphasized the need for American schools to increase the amount
of instructional time spent on core subjects.
97-4046-3
-12-
Goverruments and other entities continue to take various measures to try to
refine and restructure their ailing public school systems. For example, in
1996 the state Legislature enacted Chapter 151 of the Acts and Resolves of
1996 (the fiscal year 1997 budget). This Act fully funded MERA for the fourth
consecutive year and created a new nine-member Board of Education, which
replaced the former 15-member Board of Education effective June 30, 1996.
Audit Scope. Objectives, and Methodology
Our audit included an examination of various aspects of Chapter 71 the
Acts and Resolves of 1993, commonly referred to as MERA. Our audit focused on
education reform affecting grades kindergarten through 12. Therefore, all
references in our report to "public education" refer to these grade levels.
Our audit was conducted in accordance with applicable generally accepted
government auditing standards for performance audits promulgated by the
Comptroller General of the United States and included such audit tests and
procedures as we deemed necessary to meet our audit objectives.
Our specific audit objectives were to: (1) obtain an overall understanding
of education reform in Massachusetts, primarily focusing on MERA; (2) assess
what effect this legislation has had and will have on public education within
the Commonwealth; (3) determine whether the process used by DOE to implement
MERA was efficient, effective, and in accordance with the requirements
specified in this statute; (4) determine whether controls were in place to
measure or assess the impact of programmatic and financial objectives of the
Act; and (5) make recommendations for facilitating education reform within the
Commonwealth.
To meet our objectives, we held discussions with officials from the
Executive Office of Education, the state's DOE, the Massachusetts Legislative
Committee on Education, MTA, MBAE, and the U.S. DOE. The purpose of these
discussions was to obtain an understanding of education reform in the
Commonwealth and, in particular, the technical aspects of MERA. We also
97-4046-3
-13-
reviewed and analyzed approximately 150 publications relative to education
reform (see Appendix F) and used this information to obtain an understanding
of the history of education in the United States as well as in Massachusetts
and the prevalent trends and ideologies relative to education reform. We
reviewed all applicable state laws and regulations, documentation (e.g.,
reports and forms) maintained by DOE relative to the implementation of MERA,
as well as DOE organizational charts and internal policies and procedures.
Finally, in an effort to receive feedback relative to MERA, we sent a
survey to a statistical sample of 84 Massachusetts school superintendents, of
whom 37 replied (see Appendix C) . Comments made by these school officials in
the response to our survey were considered in the drafting of this report.
Our special-scope audit was not intended to examine all aspects of
education reform within the Commonwealth. Specifically, our examination did
not analyze the impact of the changes in state funding to local school
districts that were implemented as a result of MERA. The effect of these
funding changes and related topics are currently being examined under a
separate review being conducted by the Office of the State Auditor's Division
of Local Mandates. However, we point out that, subsequent to the initiation
of this audit, at the recpaest of appropriate state officials, we conducted a
separate review of certain activities of the Lawrence Public School System,
the results of which are documented in our report No. 97-6003-9 dated June 12,
1997. In addition, we did not examine the adequacy of the current public
school governance structure, nor did we perform audits of school systems'
accounts, records, and activities, since this is the responsibility of the
Bureau of Accounts within the Department of Revenue's Division of Local
Services and the Department of Education. Rather, our review was primarily
limited to an examination of the adequacy of the development and
administration of MERA in relation to education reform within the Commonwealth.
97-4046-3
-14-
AUDIT RESULTS
1 . Weaknesses in the Implementation and Administration of MERA Have Provided
Inadequate Assurance That the Projected $1,5 Billion Increase in State Aid
Provided under This Legislation Will Improve Public Education
During the past 11 years, Massachusetts has enacted two significant laws
designed to improve the quality of public education within the Commonwealth.
The first law, Chapter 188 of the Acts and Resolves of 1985, provided
approximately $1.8 billion in grants to cities and towns for at-risk students,
teachers and administrators, curriculum enhancement, and community
activities. The second law, the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA),
which was enacted in June 1993, may provide up to an additional $1.5 billion
to provide statewide systematic reforms to Massachusetts public schools.
Although the statutes have helped public schools in the Commonwealth fiscally
by providing them with additional state funding, our review of MERA revealed a
number of operational and administrative problems relative to its
implementation and administration. Specifically, a systematic approach to
problem solving was not utilized in the implementation and administration of
MERA. For example, DOE did not establish a baseline measurement from which to
assess any improvements in educational outcomes that may be derived from this
legislation, and DOE does not plan to begin full assessment testing until
1999. Therefore, the Commonwealth may not be able to meaningfully assess the
impact of MERA for several years.
We also found that, because the state's Department of Education (DOE) has
not established monitoring and feedback mechanisms to monitor MERA-funded
expenditures, there is inadequate assurance that the additional funding
provided under MERA is being expended in the most economical and efficient
manner and in accordance with legislative objectives. This lack of a systems
approach, which should include assessment, monitoring, and feedback
mechanisms, has prevented DOE from determining the effectiveness of previous
97-4046-3
-15-
reform initiatives. " For example, DOE was not able to explain, document, or
demonstrate what impact the approximately $1.8 billion in state funds provided
to cities and towns under Chapter 188 of the Acts of 1985 has had on improving
the quality of public education within the Commonwealth.
In addition, there is no direct correlation between the additional funding
provided under MERA and the outcomes relative to its objectives. In fact, a
number of school systems informed us that they expended MERA funds on such
items as special education, building maintenance, salary increases, and
transportation services, which are all independent of the programmatic
objectives of MERA. Moreover, MEFIA does not require specific training for
educators relative to the requirements of MERA. According to DOE and
Massachusetts Teachers Association officials, although MERA will request
teachers to introduce new teaching concepts within the classrooms, the law
does not require any teacher training specific to these new methods.
Consequently, there is inadequate assurance that these new methods and
techniques are being effectively utilized in the classrooms.
Finally, although DOE officials believe that the adoption of the Common
Core of Learning (CCL) and Academic Standards are the heart of MERA's
programmatic objectives, the adoption of the CCL and Academic Standards are
not mandated by this legislation. Therefore, although the intent of MERA is
to effect true and meaningful education reform within the Commonwealth, some
of its most significant initiatives are not mandated and are not required to
be adopted by all school systems. Also, the creation of curriculum frameworks
and the development of academic standards have yet to be completed, despite
the fact that this legislation was enacted over three years ago. Because of
these and other problems relative to education reform initiatives, the
Commonwealth cannot be assured that the approximately $1.5 billion in
additional state funding that may be provided to cities and towns under
97-4046-3
-16-
MERA will have a significant positive impact on public education within the
state.
While MERA and DOE's implementation plan appear to be a comprehensive
attempt at improving the quality of public education within the Commonwealth,
we found that the implementation and administration of MERA lacked a
systematic approach. Organizations, private and public alike, typically
employ what is referred to as a systems approach for identifying and solving
problems, which routinely involves the following seven steps:
o Identifying and defining the problem
o Developing alternative solutions to address the problem
o Evaluating the alternative solutions
o Selecting the most efficient and effective alternatives
o Implementing selected alternatives
o Evaluating the process by obtaining feedback
o Modifying the process as necessary based on feedback
An essential aspect of this problem-solving approach is baselining, which
is the process of quantifying a beginning point of a process prior to any
improvement effort. This initial or baseline measurement is essential in
assessing the effectiveness of a new process. Although we acknowledge that a
systems approach may not directly lend itself to solving all problems in
education, certain aspects of this approach are clearly applicable to any
problem-solving situation. However, we found that a number of activities
associated with a systematic approach to problem solving, including
establishing appropriate feedback mechanisms and baselining, were not utilized
in the implementation of MERA. These deficiencies may preclude the
Legislature, DOE, and other interested parties from knowing whether the
objectives of MERA are being achieved and whether MERA funding is being
expended for its intended purpose. The deficiencies that we have identified
are detailed below:
97-4046-3
-17-
A. MERA Funds Are Not Targeted to Address Specific Problems: Between
1994 and 2000, MERA is expected to provide a projected $1.5 billion increase
in state aid to public school systems. However, the funding provided to
cities and towns under MERA is not aimed at accomplishing specific purchases
or the achievement of specific measurable outcomes. Rather, MERA provides
additional funding to communities that can be used for any general activity
directly or indirectly related to education, and not necessarily for meeting
MERA's specific objectives. For example, during fiscal year 1997, the
Chairman of the Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education requested
the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) to perform a review of certain
activities of the Lawrence Public School System (LPS) (Audit Report No.
97-6003-9). As a result of this audit, it was determined that LPS was
expending MERA funds on questionable items while Lawrence High School lost its
accreditation. This is clearly an example of the problems incurred by
providing a significant amount of funds to school districts without
establishing adequate controls and monitoring over the expenditure of these
funds.
B. Lack of Monitoring Mechanisms to Measure the Effectiveness of MERA:
The success of any progreim or activity depends upon management's ability to
derive timely, useful, uniform, comprehensive, and reliable information so
that outcomes can be measured and processes involved in a program or activity
can be re-engineered so that the program or activity can function in the most
effective and efficient manner in order to achieve MERA's intended
objectives. Effective management involves periodic measurements of program
results. Consequently, key steps in any problem-solving process involve
establishing measurable objectives and monitoring mechanisms to measure
performance. Without such monitoring mechanisms, there is no effective way to
judge performance.
97-4046-3
-18-
Our review revealed that DOE does not utilize any effective monitoring
activities to assess the benefits derived by MERA. Specifically, DOE does not
monitor the financial expenditures made by cities and towns with MERA funds,
nor does it monitor how well communities are achieving MERA's programmatic
objectives. For example, DOE does not require cities and towns to submit
information documenting how MERA funds are expended. Although each school
district must file an annual financial report to DOE, this report is
unaudited, and DOE does not perform any independent verification of this
information to assess its accuracy and universal uniformity or comparability.
In its fiscal year 1997 budget, the state Legislature required DOE to
provide it with various information. Specifically, Section 588 of this budget
requires the Board of Education to submit a report by January 20, 1997,
detailing the activities undertaken and the contracts and grants awarded, and
the progress made in the following critical areas of education reform
implementation: Curriculum Frameworks, Assessment, Massachusetts Education
On-Line, Advanced Placement, Gifted and Talented, Portfolio Assessment, and
Professional Standard for Teachers and Administrators. However, this report,
which was submitted in February 1997, only provided the Legislature with
various administrative information relative to contract and grant awards, and
not with any qualitative information relative to the impact of MERA on the
public school system.
Also, according to Section 79 of MERA, an Education Reform Review
Commission was to be established by July 1, 1993 to monitor the effects of
education reform within the Commonwealth. However, according to the Chairman
of this commission, all of the commission members were not appointed until
1996, and the commission is essentially an unfunded oversight entity because
no funds have been appropriated for its operation. Therefore, the Chairman
stated, although the commission will continue to meet and perform certain
97-4046-3
-19-
monitoring activities, it is unlikely that, without funding, it can
effectively perform its mandated responsibilities.
Further, MERA contains a provision for student assessment tests to be
administered to all fourth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade students. In accordance
with the law, DOE's implementation plan requires it to develop and administer
an annual student assessment system. Forty states, including Massachusetts,
have adopted some form of assessment testing as part of their education
reform. Although a part of DOE's implementation plan, the Massachusetts
student assessment test program will not be in full operation until at least
1998, four years after the enactment of MERA. Furthermore, because no
baseline testing was performed, the results of the assessment test when it is
finally administered will provide little information regarding the
effectiveness of MERA during its most critical years of implementation.
The absence of baseline measurements and monitoring mechanisms results in
inadequate assurance that the state will be able to measure the impact of MERA
on public education or propose changes to this legislation that may make it
more effective. In addition, certain educational professionals have expressed
concerns over the effectiveness of the proposed assessment testing. For
example. Dr. Silber, Chairman of the State Board of Education, has stated that
it is clearly not appropriate to test tenth-grade students on ninth-grade
material and use these results when determining criteria for earning a high
school diploma.
In contrast, many states involved in implementing education reform have
the ability to measure the progress of their reform actions during their
implementation. For example, the Commonwealth of Kentucky began implementing
education reform in 1990. According to information we received from the
Massachusetts Legislature and DOE officials, MERA was modeled in part after
Kentucky's education reform efforts. However, in recognition of the
97-4046-3
-20-
importance of benchmarking performance, Kentucky law required the
administration of an interim testing program during the 1991-1992 school year
to provide baseline data relative to student performance. Kentucky law also
required the development of an annual performance-based assessment program no
later than the 1995-1996 school year. The benchmarking process established by
Kentucky allows policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of the reform with
the results from the first annual assessment in 1996.
In addition to Kentucky, many other states, including California, South
Carolina, and Florida, that are initiating education reform have established
baseline measurements in order to properly assess the effectiveness of their
initiatives. DOE anticipates having assessment results in 1999. However,
without a baseline, DOE will be unable to use these results to measure the
progress made in achieving MERA's objectives.
Regarding this matter, DOE officials stated that the assessment testing
process will be fair and that they will be able to measure the effectiveness
of MERA using the results of the Massachusetts Education Assessment Program
(MEAP) exams, which are currently administered in this state. However,
according to other educational professionals, including officials from the
Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and DOE, the MEAP test is not the
same as the new assessment test being developed. Specifically, MEAP scores do
not assess individual performance, whereas the assessment test currently being
developed by a consulting firm hired by DOE will be designed to test
individual performances. Given these facts, we question DOE's assertion that
MEAP scores can be used as a meaningful baseline measurement.
It should be noted that this lack of monitoring and assessment of outcomes
also existed during prior education reform legislation (i.e.. Chapter 188 of
the Acts and Resolves of 1985). In fact, although approximately $1.8 billion
in additional funding to cities and towns was provided under this legislation.
97-4046-3
-21-
DOE officials could not substantiate what effect these additional funds have
had on the quality of public education.
C. No Evidence of Correlation between Funds Spent for Public Education
and Student Performance; MERA's approach to helping public schools to
implement reform is to provide additional funds through the Foundation Budget
formula. While there is no question that MERA has benefitted many school
systems that have been historically underfunded, there is no assurance that
these additional funds will be used by all school systems in the most
effective and efficient manner or for the purposes of meeting MERA's
objectives.
A number of education professionals, such as Dr. Silber and Dr. William
Bennett, have questioned the effectiveness of increased funding in improving
student performance. Furthermore, our analysis, as well as studies done by
other oversight agencies nationwide, indicate that there may be no direct
correlation between funding and certain educational outcomes. For example, in
1994 the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization created
in 1973 by a small group of Democratic and Republican state legislators,
issued a report entitled Report Card on American Education 1994, which
provides a state-by-state analysis of per-pupil expenditures, and performance
indicators for public school students nationwide. According to the ALEC
report, although per-pupil expenditures increased 56.6% between 1972-1973 and
1993-1994, during this period average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores
declined by 35 points. The report states, in part:
An analysis of the latest available student performance measures,
compared with per pupil expenditures, average teacher salaries, and
other education spending variables, indicates no direct or systematic
relationship between spending and student performance.
In support of this conclusion, ALEC stated that none of the top 10
performing states relative to student performance were among the top 10 states
in per-pupil expenditures.
97-4046-3
-22-
In addition, the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit issued a
performance audit report entitled, Analyzing the Relationships Between Funding
Levels and the Quality of Education in Kansas School Districts. The purpose
of the report was to:
o Determine whether different levels of funding resulted in differences
in the quality of education.
o Identify factors not directly related to funding that may impact the
quality of education.
o Determine whether wealthier school districts expend more on education.
The Kansas study found that the "quality of education for districts with
similar characteristics, as measured by students' test scores and their
dropout and attendance rates, generally did not appear to be affected by
differences in those districts' funding levels."
Finally, as part of our audit we conducted a correlation analysis between
the amount each community expended per pupil according to the 1993-1994
integrated operations cost data published by DOE and the 1993 MEAP scores in
reading and math in these communities. A correlation analysis, which measures
the relationship between two sets of data, is commonly used to determine
whether large values of one data set are associated with large values of the
other data set. Using 1993-1994 per-pupil expenditures as one data set and
1993-1994 results from MEAP for tenth-grade students as the other data set, we
were able to determine the strength of the relationship between these two
variables. On a scale from 0 (no relationship) to 1.0 (full relationship),
the relationship between math scores and. funds spent per pupil was .43,
whereas the relationship between funds spent per pupil and reading scores was
.35.
Although a minimum level of funding is necessary in order to establish an
appropriate infrastructure in a public educational system, our analysis seems
to support similar studies that show that there is not always a significant
97-4046-3
-23-
relationship between 'increased funding and improved educational outcomes.
Finally, we noted that there is an inverse relationship between nationwide
SAT scores and per-pupil expenditures from 1960 through 1993. Per-pupil
expenditures increased from $1,867 in 1960 to $5,749 in 1993 (1993 constant
dollars) while SAT scores declined by 73 points during this same period.
Consequently, while MERA's approach of increasing funding to communities
has undoubtedly helped many school districts, without adequate implementation,
administration, close monitoring, and evaluation, it cannot be determined that
this additional funding will ensure that significant positive educational
outcomes are being achieved.
D. Major Initiatives of MERA Are Not Required and Have Not Been Fully
Implemented; As previously noted, DOE's Education Reform Implementation Plan
consists of 54 financial and programmatic objectives in which DOE incorporates
all the requirements of MERA. These 54 objectives fall into the following
four categories:
Number of
Categories Objectives
Guidance/Proposed Plan/Studies/Commissions/Amending Regulations 15
Administrative Actions or Changes 22
Funding 6
Academic Programs/Initiatives 11
Total 54
Although MERA and DOE's implementation plan require certain studies to be
conducted and plans to be developed, some of the most significant changes to
public education contained in MERA are optional. Specifically, the
development and implementation of the Common Core of Learning (CCL),
Curriculum Frameworks, Academic Standards, and Student Assessment Program are
considered by DOE officials to be the heart of MERA's programmatic
objectives. However, the adoption of the CCL, Curriculum Frameworks, Academic
Standards, Vocational Standards, Dual Enrollment, and School Choice by
97-4046-3
-24-
communities is not mandated by MERA or DOE regulations. Therefore, although
the intent of MERA is to effect true and meaningful education reform within
the Commonwealth, some of its most significant initiatives were not mandated
and, therefore, may not be adopted by all the public school systems within the
Commonwealth .
Also, each year DOE establishes a Foundation Budget for each school
system, which establishes minimum spending levels in each budget category.
According to DOE officials, these recommended spending levels are perceived to
be minimal in terms of meeting MERA's objectives. However, although
communities get their funds in accordance with this Foundation Budget, they
are not rec[uired to expend these funds in accordance with these budgeted line
items. By the year 2000, communities will be required to meet their total
Foundation Budget expenditure amount but will not be required to meet the
spending requirements of each budgeted line item category. For example, if a
community receives a Foundation Budget of $70 million, of which $50 million is
earmarked for staff and $20 million for administrative expenses, as long as
the school department expends this $70 million, it is in compliance with MERA
even if it spends $10 million on staff and $60 million on administrative
expenses.
I. Common Core of Learning; As previously noted, DOE, in conjunction
with state and educational professionals, developed CCL. This document, which
cost over $150,000 to develop, is to serve as a basis for what students should
be taught in the Commonwealth and therefore is closely related to the
development of the curriculum frameworks, student assessment process, and
other aspects of MERA. However, our review of the CCL revealed that many of
the goals detailed in the CCL are based on broad educational outcomes, some of
which are essentially unmeasurable. For example, the CCL includes the
following goals:
97-4046-3
-25-
All students should:
o Learn to resolve disagreements, reduce conflict, and prevent
violence.
o Accept responsibility for their own behavior and actions.
o Use the arts to explore and express ideas, feelings, and beliefs.
o Make careful observations and ask pertinent cpaestions.
o Treat others with respect and understand similarities and
differences among people.
o Work hard, persevere, and act with integrity.
It should also be noted that 37 of the 42 aspects of what a student should
be learning according to the CCL were already part of the "Goals for Education
in Massachusetts" promulgated by the Board of Education in 1987 (which were
based on goals originally established in 1971). Therefore, while the
development of the CCL appears to have been an effective public relations
measure, the CCL was not significantly different from goals for students that
already existed.
II. Academic Standards/Curriculum Frameworks; One of the primary
recommendations within the 1982 "A Nation at Risk" report was that "schools
should adopt more rigorous and measurable standards." MERA requires DOE to
establish academic standards for the core subject of mathematics, science and
technology, history and social studies, English, foreign languages, and arts
by January 1, 1995. According to MERA, "the standards shall cover grades
kindergarten through twelve and shall clearly set the skills, competency and
knowledge expected to be possessed by all students at the conclusion of
individual grades or clusters of grades." Additionally, before improvement in
student learning can be measured under MERA, the curriculum frameworks
describing the skills, knowledge, and standards of performance to be measured
must be completed by DOE. According to MERA, DOE was required to develop
97-4046-3
-26-
curriculum frameworks for mathematics, science and technology, history and
social studies, English, and foreign languages no later than January 1, 1995.
Moreover, DOE was also required to develop curriculum frameworks for the arts
no later than January 1, 1996.
DOE submitted draft frameworks for all the required subjects to the State
Board of Education in June 1995. However, as of November 1996, the board had
not yet approved curriculum frameworks for English or history and social
studies. Standards for English were not adopted until January 1997, leaving
history and social studies. DOE officials did not comment on why the Board of
Education had not yet approved all of these frameworks, or why those
frameworks approved were not done so in a timely manner in order to be useful
and provide sufficient detail to guide and inform educators within their
respective disciplines. Teachers are expected to use the frameworks to ensure
that they are teaching the established academic standards and preparing
students for their assessment tests. Because the framework has not been
completed, students may not be prepared to perform at their highest academic
potential when these tests are administered.
Auditee's Response; In response to our audit report, DOE provided the
following comments:
It is too early to tell if the increase in aid for public education
will improve public education. There have not been weaknesses in the
implementation of the law or in its administration. A substantial
body of evidence exists from school districts [DOE provided reports
from various school districts] to show that significant changes have
been made which have improved the climate for student achievement.
The draft's conclusion is premature, and it is based on an.
assumption that test results should already show improvement. . . .
A general observation about this draft report is that it is based on
an assumption. . . that we should be able to see measurable results
in student achievement already, statewide, as a result of the first
three years of Education Reform. The problem is that school reform
results cannot be quantitatively measured statewide at this time. In
some individual districts which have moved more quickly than others,
1996 and 1997 test scores may in fact offer some anecdotal evidence
that Education Reform is beginning to work. But this was always
envisioned as a seven year plan. It will take seven years to bring
97-4046-3
-27-
all communities - up to their foundation target for spending. The
assumption in the law is that this target spending rate is a
precondition for schools being able to provide the instruction and
services to students that they need to achieve.
On the other hand, the inputs which will lead to greater student
achievement can certainly be observed at this time: more funds being
spent on instruction and curriculum, more teachers hired, class sizes
reduced, school days and years lengthened, more time for core
academic study, less unstructured time in schools, more programs for
teacher professional development, new standards for evaluating
teachers and administrators, regular meetings of parents and teachers
in school councils, newer textbooks, and increased use of technology
in and among schools.
Auditor's Reply; Contrary to DOE'S statement, there clearly are
weaknesses in the implementation and administration of MERA. DOE ' s response
that, after four years and hundreds of millions of dollars being expended, "It
is too early to tell if the increase in aid for public education will improve
public education," underscores the problems with the implementation of this
legislation (e.g., without baseline or milestone measurements) and its
administration (e.g., no effective monitoring mechanisms). While DOE has
received some anecdotal feedback from certain communities about improvements
made as the result of these additional MERA funds, these reports, which are
the results of individual community rather than systemic and universal
efforts, are unverified and DOE has no way of assessing any system-wide
effects MERA may have had on public education.
In contrast, as noted in our report, the state of Kentucky implemented
education reform during 1990. During the 1991-92 school year, Kentucky
administered an interim testing program made up of subject matter tests,
performance events, and a writing portfolio that was administered to students
in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade to provide a baseline. Kentucky then
established thresholds for improvement for the schools and conducted
subsequent testing beginning in the 1993-94 school year. This sec[uential
testing provided Kentucky with timely and useful information/feedback on
97-4046-3
-28-
whether schools were achieving these thresholds and on how well Kentucky's
education reform initiative was working. In effect, the approach Kentucky
utilized establishes a baseline and provides timely, systemwide, and
meaningful feedback. This type of system, however, was not utilized by DOE
relative to MERA.
As clearly stated in our report, we do not question that the additional
funding provided under MERA helped many school districts fiscally. Our
concern is that DOE has not, to date, had any effective mechanism to assess
the extent to which these additional funds are achieving the desired
educational outcomes of MERA. Our report is not based on an assumption that
test results should have already shown improvement. Although it could be
argued that, after four years and the investment of hundreds of millions of
dollars, some educational outcome measures (e.g., test scores) should have
shown some improvement, our concern is that DOE does not know what effect, if
any, MERA is having on public education.
A prudent administrative approach would have included DOE'S implementing
effective monitoring and feedback mechanisms so that both it and other
interested parties (e.g., the state Legislature) could assess the cost/benefit
aspects of MERA and make informed judgments and decisions relative to its
implementation. However, since no such mechanisms were ever developed and
implemented by DOE, this information will not be available to assess the
effects, if any, MERA is having on public education within the Commonwealth
while potentially billions of additional tax dollars have been expended.
Without such controls, we question DOE's ability to accurately assess the
impact of MERA and its ability to make informed, appropriate decisions
relative to its implementation.
Although it will take seven years to bring all communities up to their
Foundation Budget spending levels, clearly some measurable milestones should
97-4046-3
-29-
be reached within this seven-year timeframe that could have been monitored and
evaluated by DOE if such controls had been implemented. Moreover, even after
MERA's seven-year implementation plan is completed, DOE will still have no
mechanisms in place to determine whether additional funds being provided to
cities and towns under MERA are being expended in the most economical and
efficient manner and in a manner consistent with the Legislature's intent.
In its response, DOE states that it has observed "inputs" that it
"believes" will improve student achievement being utilized by school
districts. However, such input information is either anecdotal or
unverified. Moreover, input information is essentially useless unless it can
be correlated with processes employed and outcomes achieved. Without such
correlation, there is no way to determine whether these inputs are adequate
and proper or that desired outcomes are being achieved in the most economical
and efficient manner. There is no doubt that with additional funding some
school systems will be able to enhance the quality of their educational
inputs. However, the system as a whole must be monitored in order to assess
whether positive outcomes systemwide are being achieved as a result of this
legislation. The objective of MERA is to achieve outcomes, not to observe
inputs.
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding our concern that the
implementation of MERA lacked a systems approach, DOE provided the following
comments:
The MBAE report took just such a systems approach. The Board of
Education's 1991 report on distressed schools, cited in the McDuf f v
case, took this approach and influenced the writing or MERA. The
October 1993 Education Reform Implementation Plan of DOE took this
systems approach. The Department's five year master plan, adopted in
March 1995 by the Board, took just such an approach. The Goals 2000
state improvement plan that we filed with the federal government in
March 1995 took just such an approach. And the Partnerships
Advancing Learning in Mathematics and Science initiative, a joint
collaborative effort of the Department and the National Science
Foundation which began in 1992 and strengthened under Education
97-4046-3
-30-
Reform, has used a very detailed systemic approach to improve
mathematics and science education in the commonwealth, with evidence
of positive results in student achievement. . . .
Everything in the Act is about improving student achievement. While
questions can be raised about whether enough documentation is
currently required to meet the public's need to know what steps are
being taken to achieve better student performance, the problem and
goals are quite clear.
Auditor's Reply; Contrary to DOE ' s statement, the implementation and
administration of MERA clearly lacked a systems approach. Key aspects of a
systems approach to problem solving were not utilized by DOE. Specifically,
unlike the state of Kentucky, Massachusetts did not use baselining
(establishing baseline measurements) as a means of assessing the effectiveness
of this reform initiative. Further, as mentioned throughout our report, no
effective monitoring and feedback mechanisms were established by DOE. An
effective monitoring/ feedback process should have included DOE ' s identifying
critical factors (e.g., test scores, dropout rates, number of graduates going
on to four-year colleges) and comparing a baseline measure to any changes in
these factors.
According to DOE officials, MERA was based on the 1991 MBAE report. In
this report, the MBAE contends that the state must develop a framework or
broad array of performance indicators in addition to test scores. However, to
date, DOE has not accomplished this task. These measures would have provided
DOE with the feedback necessary to make informed decisions about the reform
initiative and, if necessary, to make recommendations and re-engineer the
process. Given the enormous amount of additional funding being provided to
communities by the Commonwealth through this legislation, it is unreasonable
that such measures were not taken.
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding the development of academic
standards and the fact that these and other provisions of MERA are not
mandated, DOE provided the following comments;
97-4046-3
-31-
Academic learning standards for mathematics, science/technology,
world languages, the arts and comprehensive health were adopted in
1995 and are being used in schools. Academic learning standards for
English Language Arts were adopted in January 1997 and are being used
in schools. The academic learning standards for history and social
studies will be adopted this spring. Further, the state testing
program begins this month, on April 28, 1997, not 1999. We are
testing 3rd graders in reading and 10th graders in math, science,
English and social studies. The full state battery of customized
tests begins in 1998, not 1999. Moreover, the MEAP tests were given
in 1994 and 1996, providing useful information to review school
curriculum. . . .
Academic standards in six of eight curriculum frameworks have been
adopted. Second, it is these frameworks and the assessment system
which are the heart of the programmatic objectives in MERA. The
adoption of standards by the state is mandated in the Act. And,
because the participation of all students in the testing systems is
mandated by the Act, and these tests are based on the academic
standards in the frameworks, these frameworks ipso facto become
mandated guides for districts to use in developing their own local
curriculum and for teachers to use in developing their own local
lesson plans. Nearly all of the Act's most "meaningful initiatives,"
including the comprehensive assessment system for all students, the
performance standards for teachers and principles of evaluation for
administrators, the changes in student learning time, the required
continuing education for all teachers under the five-year
recertif ication program, the formation of school councils, and the
elimination of the general track, are mandates for schools. Further,
the statement that "the creation of curriculum frameworks and the
development of academic standards have yet to be completed." . . .
overlooks the fact that six of eight were completed in 1995, the
seventh in January 1997, and the final one will be completed this
spring.
Auditor's Reply: Our report clearly states that DOE has implemented
standards for certain academic subjects. However, although MERA was enacted
in 1993, DOE did not adopt the standards for English Language Arts until
January 1997 and has yet to adopt standards for history and social studies.
According to Section 29 of MERA, these standards must provide sufficient
detail to guide the promulgation of student assessment instruments. Although,
as noted in our report, DOE has hired a consultant to develop the student
assessment test, it has yet to adopt and implement all the standards on which
this assessment test will be based.
Clearly, all academic standards should have been adopted first in
accordance with MERA, which required most of these academic standards to be
97-4046-3
-32-
established by no later than January 1, 1995. Our concern is that, more than
two years beyond this legislatively mandated date, all of the academic
standards and curriculum frameworks have still not been established. Our
report correctly states that the adoption of the Common Core of Learning,
Curriculum Frameworks, Academic Standards, Vocational Standards, Dual
Enrollment, and School Choice by Communities is not mandated by MERA or DOE
regulations. Therefore, some of MERA's most significant initiatives were not
mandated and may not have been adopted by all the public schools within the
state.
Obviously, given the fact that standards and other key components of MERA
have in at least one case taken four years and considerable resources to
develop and are at the core of education reform, the adoption of these
components, particularly the academic standards, should be mandated. Without
such a mandate, there is an increased likelihood of school systems performing
poorly on the new assessment test being developed as well as other areas.
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding the correlation of spending to
educational outcomes and to the extent that the state should control public
school expenditures, DOE provided the following comments:
First, [the report] states that "there is no direct correlation
between the additional funding provided under MERA and the outcomes
relative to its objectives." Second, it states that "As a result,
school systems are able to use these funds in any way they deem
necessary.". . . The funding is designed to provide equity across
the state in terms of resources for schools, based on particular
local demographics. The correlation is that without substantial
state funding for the poorer communities, there could be no positive
outcome in terms of results for students. The gap between rich and
poor would grow, in violation of the SJC decision and in violation of
the rights of students everywhere in Massachusetts to an equal
educational opportunity. The second statement implies that local
decision making on spending is an erroneous policy. . . . The
tradition of this Commonwealth is to respect local autonomy. We do
so, and will do so, unless evidence mounts in certain isolated cases
that the local decision-making process has broken down to the
detriment of students.
-4046-3
-33-
In addition, alt+iough four-fifths of every school district's budget
has always been consumed by salaries and compensation for staff, both
pre-Education Reform and since, spending targets have been set by the
state for portion of the balance. For example, $50 of the minimum
aid per pupil is specified by the state to be used for professional
development of the teaching staff. And 3 percent of the
instructional costs incurred by the districts are to be used for
teacher training. . . .
(With regard to] the correlation analysis between 1993-1994 per pupil
spending and MEAP scores. . . . more current research shows a
significant relationship between targeted spending and student
achievement. . . .
It might be more appropriate to ask where our schools would be if
this increased state spending had not occurred. As has been noted in
several major progress reports on education reform by independent
organizations, much of the infusion of new state aid has been used by
districts to deal with rising enrollments, increased special
education costs, restoration of programs cut during the fiscal crisis
of the late 1980 's, charter school and school choice tuitions, and
increased student support services to deal with the more complex
social and family factors which today's schools must face. Without
the extra funding provided by the Education Reform Act, many of our
public school districts, particularly those in our poorer
communities, would be in terrible shape today, and the state would
almost certainly have been found to be in violation of its
constitutional mandate to provide an adequate level of support for
public education as set forth in the McDuf f v decision.
The second philosophical issued raised is to what degree the state
should control local spending decisions on education. In your draft,
you assert that the Department of Education should play a larger role
in telling local school officials how to spend the money they receive
from the state, in order to ensure that it is used to meet the
objectives of the education reform act. Neither DOE nor the Board of
Education has this power under the existing statute. Moreover,
such micromanagement would be extremely unwise. Although the
foundation budget is based on a typical spending profile, each of our
325 operating school systems faces its own set of local needs and
conditions. In addition, the education reform law was clearly
intended to give more, not less, flexibility to superintendents and
principal to encourage them to find creative and innovative ways to
improve our schools. The draft's suggestion would put DOE in the
untenable position of having to second-guess each and every local
spending decision. We prefer to put our efforts in to the
development of the state-wide assessment system, which will allow us
to evaluate local districts, local schools, classrooms, teachers and
individual students by their results.
Auditor's Reply; Contrary to DOE'S response, our report does not make
umptions about the lack of the correlation between spending and school
'ormance. We acknowledge that MERA has undoubtedly benefited many school
97-4046-3
-34-
systems who have been historically underfunded. As stated in our report,
however, numerous studies have substantiated that in many cases there is very
little direct correlation between the amount of money a school system spends
and its educational outcomes. For example, in addition to those sources cited
in our report, a 1994 report issued by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) concluded the following:
For the 1993-1994 school year, ten states led the nation in student
performance: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming (See Student
Performance, pages 7-8). None of these top-performing states ranks
among the top ten states in key measures of education spending.
o None of the nation's ten top-performing states ranked among the
top ten in per pupil education spending last year (1993-94).
Most of these states spent less than the national average per
pupil.
o None of the top-performing states ranked among the top ten in
average teacher salaries during 1993-94. Eight of these states
paid their teachers salaries below the national average.
o Nine of these states increased per pupil spending by less than
the national average during the last 11 years (1982-83 to
1993-94) .
Further, ALEC's 1995 report, entitled Report Card on American Education,
stated that student achievement in our public schools remains stagnant even
through spending continues to climb. This state-by-state analysis used three
key indicators of student achievement based on the most recent available data
for school year 1994-95. The results showed that MEAP reading test scores
have declined, graduation rates have dropped, and college entrance exam scores
have not demonstrated any meaningful gains. The Report Card also documents
the rising costs of education. The last two Report Cards revealed dramatic
increases in per-pupil spending, average teacher salaries, and the ratio of
teacher to students that have occurred over the past two decades. The 1995
Report Card showed that per-pupil spending and average teacher salaries both
rose 0.2 percent while the pupil-to-non-teacher ratio dropped 0.8 percent.
97-4046-3
-35-
The conclusion of this state-by-state analysis was that there is no meaningful
statistical correlation between spending and student achievement.
DOE states that the correlation between the additional funding provided by
MERA is that without substantial state funding for the poorer communities,
there could be no positive outcomes in terms of results for students. We
acknowledge that the additional funding provided under MERA has undoubtedly
helped many school districts. However, the effects of this additional funding
should be closely monitored and evaluated in order to ensure that positive
educational outcomes are being achieved. Our concern is that there is not
always a direct correlation between additional funding and positive
educational outcomes. Our report clearly acknowledges that additional
funding, if expended prudently and in appropriate areas, may effect
improvements in educational systems. However, there are inadequate controls
(e.g., reasonable guidelines, loan policies, and procedures) over how these
funds can be expended under MERA and no established procedures and plans to
monitor these expenditures to ensure compliance.
Currently, a school district, with minimal limitations, can use funds in
any manner deemed appropriate (e.g., additional administrative positions and
expenses) and will not be in violation of this statute. This fact is not
disputed by DOE. For an example, the OSA's audit of the Lawrence Public
School System (No. 97-6003-9) identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in
MERA funds being expended on items that DOE itself contends are not consistent
with the legislative intent of MERA and noted that no formal mechanisms were
in place to monitor and control this situation. Clearly, additional funds
expended in specific areas may serve to enhance more positive educational
outcomes. However, since MERA essentially places limited restrictions on how
such additional funds must be spent, there is inadequate assurance that these
additional funds will be expended in the most economical and efficient manner
or in a manner that will effect any true education reform.
97-4046-3
-36-
In this regard, bur report does not state or even imply that communities
should not make the decisions they deem appropriate relative to their school
system. Rather, our concern is that there should be some mechanisms in place
to ensure that the additional funding provided under MERA to these communities
is spent in a manner consistent with its intent. Clearly, the Commonwealth
has an obligation to the taxpayers to ensure that the billions of additional
dollars that will be provided to communities under MERA are used to effect
true and meaningful education reform. Although the Commonwealth can allow for
flexibility, the public is entitled to accountability for how these funds are
expended .
As noted in our report, DOE established a Foundation Budget for local
school systems in order to distribute the additional MERA funds. According to
DOE officials, this Foundation Budget represents the minimal expenditures
communities should be expending in these areas. However, this budgetary
process is perfunctory in that school districts are not obligated to spend
these funds in accordance with these budgeted line item categories, and there
are no mechanisms in place to prevent school systems form expending these
funds in an inefficient or wasteful manner or for purposes other than to
effect education reform. Moreover, DOE has no mechanisms in place to
effectively monitor how expenditures are actually made by school districts.
We acknowledge that a significant amount of any school system funding is
expended on compensation. However, this does not preclude expenditures of
this type form being abused. For example, school systems, because of the lack
of monitoring by DOE, could easily use MERA funds to create new and
unnecessary administrative positions or to provide unreasonably high pay
increases to noninstructional staff members. Although MERA established some
spending requirements for a few items, such as professional development, DOE
does not effectively monitor compliance with these requirements.
97-4046-3
-37-
We acknowledge' that the focus of MERA is to improve student achievement.
However, as we have stated, there are numerous deficiencies in the manner by
which DOE is attempting to achieve this outcome, including inadequate
guidelines on how these funds are to be expended and no established baselines
or effective monitoring and evaluation procedures to assess the effectiveness
of this initiative. Because of these deficiencies, there is limited assurance
that MERA will improve student achievement to its maximum possible potential
or that these funds used for this purpose will be utilized in the most
effective and efficient manner.
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding our concern over the fact that
DOE is unable to demonstrate the impact, if any, that the approximately $1.8
billion in funds provided under Chapter 188 has had on public education, DOE
provided the following comments:
The statement, "DOE was not able to explain what impact the approximately
$1.8 billion in state funds provided to cities and towns. . . has had on
improving the quality of public education in the Commonwealth" is. . . in
error. [DOE provided examples of reports in which some school districts
identified some improvements in their school system. ]
Auditor's Reply; Despite being asked on several occasions, both during
our audit and to date, DOE has not been able to document the impact, if any,
of the approximately $1.8 billion expended under Chapter 188 of the Acts and
Resolves of 1985 has had on improving the overall quality of public education
accross the Commonwealth. DOE did provide examples of reports it received
from some school districts in which school personnel describe various positive
improvements and outcomes within the school system. However, this information
was fragmented, anecdotal, and unsubstantiated. Further, DOE was unable to
determine whether these reported improvements were the result of Chapter 188,
MERA, or some other factor. Clearly, this is another case in which DOE did
not use a systems approach (e.g., baselining and monitoring) to correlate the
expenditure of these funds to verifiable educational outcomes.
97-4046-3
-38-
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding the monitoring of MERA funds,
DOE provided the following comments:
The Department conducts a coordinated program review of many major
school programs (special education, bilingual education, nutrition,
Perkins Act, civil rights administration) in 50 districts a year.
The End-of-Year report shows how districts spent funds by
programmatic categories. For exeimple, aggregating the data in that
report shows that thousands of teachers have been rehired by
districts since Education Reform, considerable money has been spent
on new textbooks and technology, and the like.
We also need to bring to your attention the fact that the DOE
monitors districts in their meeting the local minimum contribution
required under the Education Reform law foundation budget. Last
year, five districts lost state aid because they did not meet their
minimum contribution. . . .
Letters were sent to all districts illustrating whether they were
complying with the law. Approximately 50 districts were contacted
and ounended their budgets accordingly to comply with the law. That
action — DOE monitoring the reports, finding areas where the minimum
requirement was not going to be met by the budget, and working with
districts to modify their spending — is a very important piece of
what the DOE does to work with and support districts in meeting the
requirements of spending contained in MERA. For FY 96 we sent
letters to all districts and are currently working with districts to
ensure FY 97 budgets are sufficient to meet NSS [net school
spending) ....
[The report] further recommends that local districts segregate their
state school aid on their accounting books. Because these funds are
intended for the general operation of the schools, in conjunction
with local dollars, requiring them to be segregated and accounted for
separately would add significantly to the bookkeeping requirements at
the local level without adding any significant value. . . .
Auditor's Reply; As stated in our report, DOE has not established any
effective monitoring mechanism to assess the impact, if any, MERA is having in
public education. For DOE in its response to represent that it in fact has
effective monitoring mechanisms demonstrates that it does not have a clear
understanding as to what constitutes an effective and efficient monitoring
process. DOE's program reviews are done on a limited number of programs in a
limited number of school districts each year. While this may give DOE some
information on the adequacy of these programs, this fragmented information is
not useful in assessing the overall impact of MERA.
97-4046-3
-39-
Further, the year-end reports that DOE receives from school districts are
unaudited and provide inadequate information on how MERA funds are being
expended. Moreover, DOE does not effectively utilize the information that it
receives in these reports. For example, during our audit of LPS we found that
LPS was not expending the amount of funds required by MERA for such items as
books and materials. Although this fact was evident based on our review of
LPS's year-end reports, DOE was unaware of this fact.
In its response, DOE states that it monitors net school spending in school
districts. This is only one small aspect of what DOE should be monitoring, is
a relatively easy assessment, and requires only a review of each school
department's bottom-line expenditure figures. This analysis, however, does
not provide any information on the impact of MERA or the reasonableness and
allowability of expenditures made by school departments. In effect, the
monitoring activities being performed by DOE are inadequate and ineffective.
Our report does not specifically recommend that local districts segregate
MERA funds from local funds used in the operation of schools. Rather, our
report merely points out that school systems are not recpjired to segregate
these funds, which makes it difficult for DOE to monitor and therefore for any
interested party to determine how these additional MERA funds are being
expended .
Auditee's Response (Continued); Regarding test scores, student
performance, and the use of past test scores administered in Massachusetts as
a baseline measure for the new assessment test, DOE provided the following
comments:
The draft. . .[does not] take into account the steps in test
development that must be taken in order to prevent and withstand
legal challenges to a state assessment program with high stakes
(i.e., potential denial of high school diploma). Statewide testing
took place in 1996 (MEAPS), will be expanded this year (1997) in more
grades than those required under MERA (Iowa tests at grades 3 and
10), and will be administered fully based on the standards in the
frameworks in 1998. This is in compliance with MERA, which states
-4046-3
-40-
that no earlier -than 1998 will the state tests be administered tied
to the frameworks. Also, test questions in the four core academic
areas are being field-tested with students in 1997. This is crucial
to ensure that the full test and subsequent high stakes will be based
on measures which are reliable and valid. If the process by which
frameworks, test development and test administration were not being
followed in this deliberate fashion, MERA could be dismantled by a
legal challenge. This is a lesson we have learned from the
experience of other states. Without this careful planning, the first
student whose diploma is denied because of failure to pass the state
assessment will have a valid claim to overturn all of the state's
work and investment in testing by way of challenge to the program in
court. We cannot and will not risk this result. . . .
While "national SAT scores declined from 1960 to 1994," as the draft
states, Massachusetts SAT scores released in 1996 showed the highest
math scores in a decade and the highest verbal scores in seven
years. Moreover, a record 80% of Massachusetts students took the
SAT, the highest rate in the nation. The percentage has steadily
risen (64% in 1986, 79% in 1991). Massachusetts participation rate
is nearly double the national average (41%), and far above our
neighbors (NY 73%, NH 70%, VT 70%, RI 69%, ME 68%). The reason the
participation rate is important is that it means expectations are
high for Massachusetts students. And the fact that more of our
students take the test makes our results, compared to the nation,
nothing short of remarkable. Our scores are higher than the national
in verbal, and just below in math (although math trend is moving very
well, with MA scores just seven points below the national average now
versus 22 points below in 1987). In other states, a smaller
percentage of students take the SAT and they are the cream of the
crop. Here in MA, a broader cross-section takes the test, so our
average scores should in fact be far lower than the national
average. As the College Board stated in its 1996 release, "the great
disparity in rate of participation at the national and state levels
puts the state at a considerable disadvantage in these comparisons. .
given that fact, the Massachusetts average (for writing
achievement) is surprisingly high when compared to the nation. ..."
For another example, look at the NAEP results. . . . NAEP is
administered by the federal government and provides the only measure
of state by state comparisons. The 1996 NAEP scores, released
February 1997, show that the MA scores in mathematics. . .put MA
eimong the nine highest performing states for 4th grade, and the 11th
highest for 8th grade. Our 8th grade scores increased a
statistically significant five points in the period 1992 to 1996 (to
278, from 273). Also, the portion of our students who performed very
well — what NAEP calls "at or above proficient" — outplaces the
nation in 4th grade by four percentage points (24 versus 20) and in
8th grade by 5 points (28 versus 23). While our scores are still not
good enough, to be sure, the trend is moving in the right direction.
Finally, the state's biennial testing program, the MEAP, showed
results in 1996 with some significant improvements in certain areas
(grade 4 reading and science, and grade 8 reading) over an eight-year
period, and no declines over the shorter term (1994 to 1996). The
results are mixed overall, but these specific areas bear noting. . . .
97-4046-3
-41-
Regarding baseline testing measures, the SAT, the NAEP, the Iowa 3rd
grade reading test, and the standardized tests that are widely used
by school districts, all will provide further baseline comparisons in
1997 and 1998, well before 1999. Also, the Iowa battery being
administered to 10th graders statewide this month will allow a
snapshot of nationally normal comparisons.
The issue of baseline measures is not limited to student test
scores. Dropout rates are also a useful measure of the ability of
schools to hold and educate students. In fact, the state dropout
rate has shown continuing improvement since MERA, declining from 3.7%
in 1994 to 3.6% in 1995 to 3.4% in 1996. In addition, the statement
that MEAP scores can be used as a meaningful baseline is entirely
accurate, looking at MEAP scores as a measure of achievement by
schools and districts (not of individual students).
In addition, nationally norm-referenced measures used to assess
students are conducted by every local school district, both
concurrent with the mandated state test grade levels and interspersed
between those grades. These test measures give baseline and trend
data by district.
Regarding performance standards, the Board of Education and
Commissioner are scheduled to discuss their development in April 1997.
Auditor's Reply; In its response, DOE points to several test score
results as being indicative of how public education is improving in
Massachusetts. In this regard, we acknowledge that the average SAT math score
for 1996 did improve. However, the 1996 average math score of 504 was up only
two points from the 502 average math score in 1995 and four points from the
average math test score for Massachusetts during 1994. In effect, a far less
than 1% increase in average test scores in this area since 1994 does not
indicate significant improvement in this area. Also, these math scores,
although slightly higher, still placed Massachusetts in the bottom 50% of test
score results in this area.
DOE points out that Massachusetts has one of the highest participation
rates for taking this exam and contends that this high level of participation
may have adversely effected the state's average test scores on this exam.
However, it is clearly the profiles of students who take the exam and not the
number that would have the ability to skew test scores. DOE did provide us
with documentation that indicated that the profile of students who took the
97-4046-3
-42-
last SAT exams in Iowa included a higher percentage of students in higher
academic percentiles. Nevertheless, the implication in DOE ' s response that
only "cream of the crop" students in all other states take the SAT tests is
both derogatory and spurious.
Regarding the NAEP scores DOE cites in its response, it should be noted
that there was very little linear relationship in the results of these test
scores. Specifically, not all states take these exams, the exams are usually
given in different grades each time they are administered, and the exeims are
given only to a sample of students in each participating state. Moreover, we
disagree with DOE that a 1.8% increase between 1992 and 1996 in eighth-grade
math scores represents a "significant" increase.
Contrary to what DOE states, our report correctly reports that no baseline
measurements were established during the implementation of MERA. School
districts administer various tests, including achievement tests, to their
students. However, not all school districts uniformly administer the same
test throughout the state. Also, according to DOE and other officials with
whom we spoke, the MEAP test cannot be used to assess an individual student's
performance. Like the new tests being developed, MEAP scores assess the
performance of school districts and not the performance of individual
students. Therefore, although there are fragmented test results that DOE can
collect, none of these results can be used as a reasonable baseline
measurement for the new assessment test that is being developed.
Consequently, there is no system-wide basis for comparison.
Also, the new test being developed will test students' knowledge of the
curriculum being taught in Massachusetts schools. In contrast, achievement
tests currently being administered in some school districts (e.g., the Iowa
test) test a student's general knowledge in certain academic areas. Clearly,
none of these test results can be used as a baseline measure for the impact of
97-4046-3
-43-
MERA. DOE'S contention that these prior test results can be used as a
reasonable baseline measure is inaccurate and misleading, since true baseline
measures will not be available until years after the implementation of MERA.
2 . DOE Has Not Fully Complied with the Legislative Intent of MERA Relative to
Time and Learning
MERA requires the Board of Education to prepare a plan to extend the time
during which students attend schools to reflect current norms in other
industrialized nations. In response to this recpairement , DOE created the
Massachusetts Commission on Time and Learning to develop this plan. In
September 1994, the commission issued a report that recommended amendments to
DOE'S existing time and learning regulations. These recommendations redefined
what constituted instructional hours and increased the amount of instructional
time students would receive in core subjects (e.g., math, science). However,
according to DOE officials, due to opposition, in part from non-core-subject
teachers (e.g., physical education and home economics) who felt that their
subjects may be in jeopardy if the amount of instructional time in subjects
increased without the school day being extended, these recommendations were
never implemented. Therefore, the requirement of this section of MERA to
change the time and learning structure of our public school system is not
being met.
Section 80 of MERA states that the Board of Education "shall prepare a
plan to extend the time during which students attend school to reflect
prevailing norms in advanced industrial countries. . . . Said plan shall
contain a practical, but timely, proposal for implementation and detail all
associated costs." The Massachusetts Commission on Time and Learning was
created by DOE to prepare the plan required by the law and to evaluate and
define the amount of instructional time within Massachusetts schools.
97-4046-3
-44-
In May 1994, a National Commission on Time and Learning issued a report
entitled "Prisoners of Time," which revealed that American schools provide at
least 50% less instructional time during the final four years of schooling
than German, French, and Japanese schools. The commission defined
instructional time as time devoted to the following core subjects: native
language and literature, mathematics, science, history, civics, geography, the
arts, and foreign languages.
In September 1994, the Massachusetts Commission on Time and Learning
issued a report entitled "Time For a Change," which made a series of
recommendations relative to instructional time in Massachusetts schools and
DOE'S existing time and learning regulations. These recommendations were
incorporated into proposed amendments to the school year and school day
regulations (603 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 27.00) promulgated by DOE
and, if adopted, would have a significant impact on the structure of school
instruction time. Below is a synopsis of these proposed changes;
o All students will be provided a minimum amount of time per day (5
hours for elementary students and 5.5 hours for secondary students) of
instruction in the core subjects of mathematics, science and
technology, history and social studies, English, foreign languages,
the arts, and approved vocational technical courses.
o All other instruction and all school services and activities will be
provided in time beyond the minimum required time for core subject
instruction.
o The school year will include at least 180 school days that meet the
instructional hours requirement described above. Schools may schedule
additional days on which less instructional time will be provided or
only certain grades are in attendance, but these will be in addition
to the 180 full instructional days required by the regulation.
o All school districts will schedule at least 185 full instructional
school days per year to ensure that time lost due to inclement weather
or other school day disruptions will not result in less than 180 full
instructional school days per year.
o Local school districts will have the option of ending the
instructional school year for graduating seniors up to five days prior
to graduation only if their graduation is scheduled to occur within a
week of the last scheduled day of school.
97-4046-3
-45-
The most significant provision within these recommendations pertains to
the definition of "instructional hours." The old regulations required the
Scune minimum instructional hours for students, (5 hours for elementary
students and 5.5 hours for high school students) as the commission's
recommendations. However, under the old regulations, instructional hours were
defined to include any "regularly scheduled teaching-learning activities, but
shall not include lunch periods." Consequently, activities such as study
periods, physical education, health education, assemblies, and other services
could be included as instructional hours. The proposed regulations redefine
instructional hours to include only those core subjects identified by the
commission and further states that all other school activity must be scheduled
independent of this instructional time. Based on this definition, the
commission projected that schools would need to operate an average of 7 hours
(elementary school) or 7.5 hours (high school) per day.
The other significant provision within the commission's recommendations
pertains to early release days. The old regulations allowed early release
days to count towards the 180 school day requirement. The commission
recommended that these days not count toward the 180-day requirement. As a
result, the school year would consist of 180 full days of school, and any
early release days would be in addition to the 180 days.
The commission's recommendations were consistent with the requirements of
MERA and would address the problems identified in the national commission's
report. However, the regulations, which were actually promulgated by DOE in
December 1994, made minimal changes to the existing regulations and did not
address all the recommendations made by the commission.
According to the Executive Director of Educational Improvement for DOE,
the Board of Education encountered a great deal of resistance, in part from
non-core subject teachers (e.g., health, physical education, home economics)
97-4046-3
-46-
who felt that their "jobs may be eliminated if the amount of instruction time
devoted to core subjects was increased without extending the school day. As a
result, DOE amended the proposed definition of instruction time to include
activities in addition to the core subjects as defined by the commission.
In addition, as a result of similar opposition from educators, the
proposed amendment relative to early release days was not adopted into
regulation. The adopted regulations make no reference to early release days
and, according to DOE, early release days may be factored into the 900-990
hour requirement.
Consequently, although MERA required the board to develop a plan to extend
attendance time for students to reflect prevailing norms in other
industrialized countries, this plan was not accomplished. In fact, the only
significant changes to DOE ' s original regulations were as follows:
o School districts are required to schedule 185 days of school to ensure
that time lost due to inclement weather or other disruptions will not
result in less than the 180-day requirement. The old regulations
recommended the scheduling of 185 days but did not require it.
o The old regulations allowed graduating seniors to be dismissed up to
22 days before the regular closing date of school. The adopted
regulations reduced this to 12 days prior to the regular closing date
of school.
Regarding this matter, a DOE official stated that, although the length of
the school day was not changed, communities and DOE would take measures to be
in compliance with the law. However, this official was unable to tell us what
specific measures were comtemplated and how DOE would be able to monitor
whether the law was being met by the communities.
Auditee's Response; In response to this issue, the Commissioner of DOE
provided the following comments:
The requirement of MERA to change the structure of time and learning
in our public schools has been met. Students beginning this
September will each receive at least 900 or 990 hours of structured
learning time (900 if in elementary school, 990 if in secondary
school). In nearly all districts, this is a dramatic increase in the
time allotted for structured learning. Some districts had earlier
-4046-3
-47-
reported that some students were in high school taking just two or
three academic courses, with four or five free periods. This will no
longer be possible under the time and learning regulations. In
addition, the minimum hours of structured learning time per year
allows early release days for teachers, without undercutting the
hours of learning time students receive. This is a very important
distinction which is often overlooked. The net effect is to preserve
quality instructional time for students while allowing districts to
schedule time for teachers to work together to strengthen their own
professional development and planning curriculum and instructional
changes with other teachers.
Also, time students spend at breakfast and lunch, passing between
classes, in homeroom, at recess, and in non-directed "study" periods
does not count toward the 900 or 990 hour minimum requirement, so in
fact these hours are serious hours for academic study. All other
hours are above and beyond that minimum [DOE provided a list of
schools that have extended either the number of instructional hours
or the number of days in their school year]. . . .
Required time spent on core academic subjects has in fact increased
in our schools as a direct result of the Education Reform Act and the
regulations on time and learning adopted in 1994. Districts are
changing their practices. Prior to this, schools were open for
learning for 5 or 5 1/2 hours a day, 180 days a year, but the state
never looked beneath these number to ensure that structured learning
in core areas was actually being received by all students. Now we
are doing this, and local school districts are extending structured
learning time for students accordingly. . . .
The commission recommended minimum time per day in core areas; the
regulations provide for that as well as time for subjects defined in
the Common Core and approved by a local community. The net effect of
this regulation, coupled importantly with the state assessment in the
core academic areas, is to substantially increase core academic
learning time for all students in all schools. The commission
recommended 180 full instructional days with five hours per day for
elementary students and five and a half hours a day for secondary
students. The regulation adopted provides for the same minimum
number of hours of learning time as the commission recommended, but
allows local flexibility in scheduling some days above the five or
five and a half hours so that other days could provide fewer hours
for students and more hours for teacher planning time. The
commission recommended that schools schedule a 185 day year. The
commission recommended tightening the early release for high school
seniors from the former option of 22 days prior to graduation, to
five days; the regulation did tighten the standard by reducing the
early option from 22 days to 12. . . .
All districts must submit a report detailing how they will meet the
full state requirements for time and learning which take effect this
September. A few districts have stated that they cannot meet the
recpairements . DOE is "able to monitor" the delivery of instructional
time. . . . The reports filed by the superintendents are submitted
by the districts after they have planned and negotiated and scheduled
their students for this standard. Also, we have a problem resolution
97-4046-3
-48-
system in place "in which the DOE receives complaints from parents,
teachers, students, and others who allege violations of state or
federal law. . . .
The recommendation that the Board "amend its regulations to extend
the time during which students attend school to reflect prevailing
norms" is quite distant from reality. In Japan, the length of the
school year is well over 200 days. For the Board to amend its
regulations to "require" this school year would impose a massive
unfunded mandate on districts. It would also come to loggerheads
with the collective bargaining statute. On the other hand, ensuring
that the hours within each school day and year contain structured
learning time for all students — which is what the regulations
accomplish — takes a much more serious and effective view of the
relation between time and learning.
Auditor's Reply; Contrary to DOE's response, the regulations promulgated
by DOE relative to time and learning do not meet the requirements of MERA. As
stated in our report. Section 80 of MERA states that the Board of Education
"shall prepare a plan to extend the time during which students attend school
to reflect prevailing norms in advanced industrialized countries," which would
involve either increasing the number of days in the school year or the number
of hours in a school day. Various studies show that students in public
schools in Massachusetts spend far less time in terms of days (180) in school
as do students in other countries such as Japan (243 days) and Germany (240
days) .
Additionally, several reports we reviewed indicated that many of the other
industrialized countries provide many more instructional hours in core
academic subjects. For example, according to one report, in the final four
years of schooling. United States students are required to spend a total of
only 1,460 hours on core academic subjects, which is less than half of the
time spent by students in other industrialized nations such as Germany (3,528
hours), France (3,280 hours), and Japan (3,170 hours). DOE's original
regulations (promulgated during the 1980s) and current regulations require the
same 900 to 990 hours of structured learning time. Therefore, there has been
no increase in the eimount of time students are required to spend in school.
97-4046-3
-49-
As stated in our report, the Commission on Time and Learning recommended
that students be provided 5 to 5.5 hours of instruction in the core subjects
of mathematics, science, technology, history, social studies, English, foreign
languages, the arts, and approved vocational/technical courses. This proposed
change was more consistent with the requirements of MERA. The original
regulations proposed by DOE redefined instructional hours to include only
those core subjects identified by the commission and further stated that all
other school activities must be scheduled independent of instructional time.
Based on this definition, the commission projected that schools would need to
operate an average of 7 hours (elementary school) or 7.5 hours (high school)
per day. However, DOE's final regulations modified the definition of
instructional time to include anything that falls within the Common Core of
Learning (CCL) . As noted in our report, because the CCL is a broad-based
guide, virtually any activity could be interpreted as being part of the CCL.
For example, some of the guidelines specified in the CCL include:
o Assert responsibility for one's own behavior and action.
o Work hard, persevere, and act with integrity.
Consequently, DOE's new regulations make minimal changes to the time and
learning requirements it established during the 1980s and clearly do not meet
the requirements of MERA. Moreover, it should be noted that, in its final
report dated November 1995, the commission made the following recommendation
relative to the structure of the school year.
Move toward lengthening the school year to 200 days. The Board of
Education should promote policies and funding to make possible 190
days for students and 10 full days for teacher planning, professional
development, and collaboration. The Legislature and the Executive
Branch should support an appropriation for incentive funding to
realize this recommendation.
Contrary to what DOE states, our recommendation that DOE amend its
regulations to extend the time during which students attend school to reflect
97-4046-3
-50-
prevailing norms in "other industrialized nation's is not "quite distant from
reality." To the contrary, it is completely consistent with what the MBAE and
the commission recommended and what is required under MERA. Clearly, in order
to effect true education reform and comply with the requirements of this
statute, DOE should take measures to comply with the law and ensure that
public school students receive more instructional time in core academic
subjects in order to be competitive in our global economy.
In its report dated September 1994, the Commission on Time and Learning
concluded that the length of the school day could be extended with no extra
costs to school districts by stating, in part:
We recognize that this sharp focus on the academic time means that
other categories of school time, e.g., general instruction (for
example, health and physical education) and additional,
non-instructional programs and services, such as lunch, recess,
passing time, and study halls, will require some extension of the
average school day. We believe that such extensions are necessary
and can be managed with the assistance of the foundation budget at
little or no extra cost to school districts. In particular, we
recommend the utilization of flexible and differentiated teacher
scheduling. We recommend technical assistance to school districts,
so that each school community participates in shaping an effective
schedule for providing every student his/her full share of core and
general instructional time as well as an adequate share of other
programs and services. In the event that there are any additional
expenses associated with taking such measures, we believe that this
would be an appropriate use of the additional funds being provided
under MERA.
97-4046-3
-51-
• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Society's expectations of public education has dramatically changed from
not only focusing on traditional academic disciplines but also ensuring equal
opportunity education. However, according to some educational professionals
with whom we spoke, teaching methods remained relatively stagnant because, in
many cases, educational systems did not devote the necessary resources to
effectively implement the changes and develop the infrastructure necessary to
keep public education in a position where it could continue to effectively
meet both the academic and social needs of students and the economic needs of
the workplace.
As a result, individuals concerned with the quality of public education
point to various statistics and outcome measures as being indicative of the
decline in public education. Such statistics and measures include declining
average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores and the fact that, although the
United States spends more per capita on education than any of the world's
seven largest industrialized nations, in 1994 it ranked seventh in average
math scores and sixth in average science scores. Representatives of the
business community have also publicly expressed their concerns over the
quality of individuals entering the workforce from public high schools.
In response to these concerns and criticisms, some educators argue that
these declining outcome measures do not necessarily indicate that the average
public school students are learning less today than they did 20 years ago.
Rather, these educators believe that, although the amount of information known
by the average student relative to testing data on standardized tests may be
less and result in lower test scores, in fact, the average public school
student today possesses more knowledge in other areas (e.g., computers) than
the average student of a decade ago, which is not tested or reflected in these
exams.
97-4046-3
-52-
In response to g'rowing concern over the quality of public education, the
state Legislature has enacted legislation aimed at reforming public education
in the Commonwealth that provided additional funding to cities and towns to be
used for educational purposes. In particular, MERA makes significant progress
toward ensuring that each public school system has adequate resources and,
unlike prior legislation, requires the establishment of academic standards.
MERA has undoubtedly provided many school systems with much needed funds to
allow them to improve the quality of education within the communities.
However, providing large amounts of untargeted funds without establishing
effective monitoring mechanisms, as is being done under DOE ' s implementation
of MERA, may not be in the best interest of the students or taxpayers of
Massachusetts .
A well-educated public is one of the greatest assets a society can
possess. Therefore, it is prudent to continually monitor and attempt to
improve our public education system. Some advocates of education reform
believe that the way to improve public education in Massachusetts is to simply
replicate the educational systems used in many other industrialized nations.
These systems, according to certain outcome measures, produce students who
appear to be more proficient in the knowledge of core subjects (e.g., math and
sciences). In contrast, other educational professionals believe that these
other educational models should not be replicated, contending that our
educational system is in many respects superior to these other systems in that
it facilitates creativity and social development.
Providing more funding for education, as was done under the two most
recent education reform laws, helped provide better educational opportunities
for students in public schools. This additional funding allowed cities and
towns to try new initiatives and provided more funds for capitalization to
those communities who were below an acceptable maintenance level. However,
97-4046-3
consideration should be given that any additional funds provided through
education reform legislation should not be discretionary in nature but rather
should be directed toward specific tasks associated with the re-engineering of
our public educational system. School districts should be held accountable
not only for ensuring that these funds are expended for their intended purpose
but also for achieving the outcomes required by the legislation. Finally, any
reform process should be adequately controlled and include, at a minimum,
baseline measurements and monitoring and evaluating mechanisms to ensure that
prompt assessment and effective re-engineering of the process can take place,
and performance standards that are attainable but exact maximum performance
from students and educators.
In order to ensure that state and other funds provided for the purpose of
education reform are expended in the most effective and efficient manner and
for their intended purpose, DOE in conjunction with the state Legislature
should:
o Consider amending DOE regulations to require school systems to expend
the funds they receive through their Foundation Budgets in accordance
with the budgeted expense line items established in these budgets.
According to DOE officials, the budgeted line items in each school
districts Foundation Budget represent the minimal amount of funds
which should be expended by these districts in order to affect
reform. The financial objectives of any education reform act should
specifically support programmatic objectives within the Act. If DOE
wants to allow school systems some flexibility, they can allow school
districts to shift costs between line items up to a maximum amount
(e.g., 10% to 20%). However, DOE should require schools that want to
shift funds between budgeted line items in excess of this amount to
file a budget amendment for DOE ' s review and approval.
o Establish monitoring and evaluating mechanisms to ensure greater
accountability for the outcomes desired by MERA. For example, DOE
should establish effective systems to monitor expenditures made by
cities and towns from funds provided by MERA to ensure that these
funds are being expended in areas that will effect true education
reform (i.e., in accordance with the Foundation Budget). Also, DOE
should establish mechanisms in addition to standardized testing to
evaluate in relative terms, the performance of each school district.
o Amend its regulations, as required by MERA, to extend the time during
which students attend school to reflect prevailing norms in other
97-4046-3
-54-
advanced industrialized countries. If DOE believes that it is not
feasible to make such an amendment, it should formally explain to the
Legislature why this is so and seek to amend Section 80 of MERA that
requires the change in time and learning.
o Consider making the adoption of certain key aspects of MERA (e.g.,
academic standards and curriculum frameworks) mandatory for local
school districts. Such a measure would serve to ensure that classroom
instruction within public schools in the Commonwealth is consistent
with the intent of MERA and uniform throughout the Commonwealth. DOE
should also establish specific sanctions for noncompliance with these
aspects as well as all fiscal requirements for MERA funds.
In addition, the State Education Reform Review Commission should continue
to seek the resources it needs to effectively carry out its responsibilities
of monitoring the effectiveness of MERA. The commission should routinely
provide reports to DOE and the state Legislature relative to this issue. At a
minimum, these reports should detail the achievement of specific outcome
measures in each school district and should be used by these entities to
evaluate the effectiveness of MERA and determine whether this legislation
should be amended.
97-4046-3
-57-
Graph 3
APPENDIX A (continued)
International Comparison of 1991
Science Test Scores for 13-Year-Olds
Country
97-4046-3 -58-
APPENDIX A (continued)
International Comparison of 1991 Math Test Scores for 13-Year-Olds
Graph 4
75
70
65
60
S
c
o55 --I
r
e
50
45
40
35
PI
Country
97-4046-3
-59-
APPENDIX B
ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED DURING THE AUDIT
The Massachusetts Department of Education
Maiden Corporate Center
350 Main Street
Maiden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
The Massachusetts Board of Education
Maiden Corporate Center
350 Main Street
Maiden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
The U.S. Department of Education
J.W. McCormack Building, Rm 222
Federal Post Office and Court House
Boston, Massachusetts 02109-4557
(617) 223-9662
The Legislative Committee on Education
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
Room 473 G, State House
Boston, Massachusetts 02133-1054
(617) 722-2070
The Massachusetts Teachers Association
20 Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 742-7950
Massachusetts Business Alliance for
Education
M.B.A.E. Administrative Offices
405 Grove Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01605
(508) 754-9425
Massachusetts American Federation
of Teachers
38 Chauncy Street
Suite 402
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
(617) 423-3342
Mass Insight
1030 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 492-0580
The Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation. Inc.
24 Province Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-5105
(617) 720-1000
-60-
APPENDIX C
School Systemg Surveyed
Town
Abington
Andover*
Ashland
Avon
Ayer
Bellingham
Beverly
Bolton
Bourne*
Boylston
Brockton
Brookline
Burlington*
Chatham*
Clinton*
Dalton*
Dedham
East Bridgewater
Fall River
Feeding Hills
Foxboro*
Georgetown*
Grafton*
Greenfield
Harvard
Holbrook*
Hudson*
Hull*
Huntington*
Hyannis
Lawrence*
Lawrence Charter*
Lee
Lexington*
Ludlow*
Mashpee
Millbury*
Mt. Washington*
Nantucket*
Natick*
Needham*
New Bedford*
Town
Newburyport*
Northampton*
Northampton/Smith*
Northbourough*
Norton
North Reading
Norwood
Peabody*
Petersham
Pittsf ield
Randolph*
Raynham*
Revere*
Rochester
Scituate
Shelbourne Falls
Shirley*
Somerset*
South Dartmouth
South Deerfield*
South Easton*
Southwick*
South Yarmouth
Stoughton
Swansee
Townsend
Tyngsborough
Upton*
Uxbridge
Wakefield*
Warren*
Webster
Wellesley*
Westminster*
West Newbury*
Weston*
Whitman
Wilbraham*
Williamstown*
Woburn*
Wrentham
Watertown*
* Did not respond
97-4046-3
-61-
APPENDIX D
Description of DOE ' s Objectives Relative to MERA
Strategic Goal I; Establish New Standards and Programs for Students
That Ensure High Achievement
I-l Establish the Massachusetts Common Core of Learning
1-2 Develop Curriculum Frameworks
1-3 Set Academic Standards for All Students
1-4 Develop and Administer Annual Student Assessment System
1-5 Evaluate and Define Instructional Time and Prepare a Plan to Extend
School Day and/or Year
1-6 Eliminate the General Track
1-7 Implement Standards and New Program Initiatives for Vocational
Education
1-8 Develop Comprehensive System for Adult Basic Ed. & Literacy
1-9 Ensure a Safe School Environment
I-IO Study the Feasibility of Reg. Boarding Schools and Promote
Educational Alternatives for Chronically Disruptive Students
I-ll Staff the Governor's Commission on Early Childhood
1-12 Establish a Demonstration Project to Assess Outreach/Education
Programs for Parents of Young Children
1-13 Establish a Comprehensive Health Education and Human Services Grant
Program
1-14 Prepare a Plan of Comprehensive Child and Family Services
1-15 Staff the Governor's Commission on Bilingual Education
1-16 Conduct a Comprehensive Study of Special Education
I- 17 Administer a Program to Allow High School Students to Enroll in
Public Higher Education
Strategic Goal II; Administer a Fair and Eguitable System of
School Finance
II- 18 Administer Foundation Budget Program
11-19 Develop Regulations and Administer Local School Spending Waivers
97-4046-3
-62-
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Activity No. Activity Title
11-20 Administer School Choice Participation and Reimbursement Program
11-21 Convene Working Committee to Devise and Recommend Improved Adult
Basic Ed. Funding Mechanisms
II- 22 Establish Policy to Ensure Districts Distribute Funding Equitably
among Schools
Strategic Goal III; Work With School District to Create a
Governance Structure That Encourages Innovation and Accountability
III- 23 Gather Detailed Information from School Districts
III-24 Adopt a New System for Evaluating Schools and Districts Annually
III-25 Publish Profiles of All Public Schools and Districts and Publicize
Successful Models
III-26 Establish Parent Information Systems for School Choice
III-27 Develop Process and Regulations to Identify, Assist, and Intervene
in Underperf orming Schools, Districts, and Municipalities
III-28 Oversee the Establishment and Operation of Charter Schools
III-29 Promote the Implementation of School Councils and Other Forms of
School-Based Management
III-30 Improve the Management and Efficiency of School Districts and
Encourage the Adoption of New Reg. Dist. and Collaboratives
III-31 Update and Reorganize Advisory Councils
III- 32 Promulgate Regulations to Designate Municipal CEO Involvement in
Reg. School Dist. Collective Bargaining
Strategic Goal IV; Enhance the Quality and Accountability of All
Educational Personnel
IV- 33 Establish New Standards, Regulations and Processes to Certify and
Recertify School Personnel
IV-34 Establish Guidelines and a Statewide Plan for Professional
Development
IV-35 Provide Full Certification and Recertif ication Services
IV-36 Establish Criteria for Performance Standards for Educational
Personnel
IV-37 Establish Principles and Enhanced Guidelines for District Systems
of Evaluating Teachers, Principals, and Administrators
-63-
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Activity Title
Determine and Oversee a Process for Selecting Arbitrating
Contested Dismissals or Performance Standards
Administer the "Attracting Excellence to Teaching" Program
Appoint an Advisory Commission on Adult Resources Ratio
File a List of All Early Retirement Vacancies with the
Legislature
Review Affirmative Action Compliance by School Districts
Strategic Goal V; Improve the Department of Education's
Capacity and Effectiveness in Implementing Education Reform
Improve Public Awareness, Understanding, and Support of
Education Reform
Articulate the Need for Public Support of Education and
Assist in Building that Support
Provide Ongoing Information, Technical Assist., and Training
to Support School Dist. in Implementing Education Reform
Analyze the Education Reform Act and Prepare New Legislation
Staff the Commission on Regulatory Relief
Evaluate Department of Education Work prior to MERA Act and
Recommend Discontinuance of Non-Essential Activities
Evaluate Department of Education Resources in Light of New
Responsibilities
Evaluate Department of Education Operations in Light of New
Responsibilities
Prepare an Annual Report on the Conditions of Massachusetts
Public Schools
Prepare an Annual Master Plan for Public Education
Prepare a Five-Year Master Plan and Annual Progress Reports
for Early Childhood, Elementary, Secondary, & Vocational
Technical Public Education
Develop a Statewide Educational Technology Plan Called Mass
Ed Online
97-4046-3
-64-
APPENDIX E
Foundation Aid;
Description of Aid Provided under MERA
Aid given to districts that are below a foundation level of
$5,500 per student.
Equity Aid:
Aid given to communities that tax themselves above a
Required Local Effort (RLE) of $9.40 per $1,000. Equity
Aid does not have to be spent on education; rather it is a
"reward" for the communities to use however they see fit.
Overburden Aid;
Aid given to communities of lower property wealth who also
have a low-tax effort, but would be severely affected by a
large increase in the RLE.
Minimum Aid; Aid provided of $75 per student statewide.
New Region Aid; Aid provided to districts that voluntarily form new
regional school districts.
School Choice Aid; Aid provided to districts that are under foundation budget
level and lose students to other districts through the
state's school choice program. This program reimburses the
districts — either partially or fully depending upon the
district's wealth — for the transfer of state funds out of
the sending school district to the receiving school
district.
97-4046-3
-65-
APPENDIX F
Bibliography of Referenced Publications
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
(1) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Board of Education. Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation. 1975 School Finance Reform
Legislation; Ecruity and Relief; Boston, MA. 1975.
(2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Board of Education. Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation. 1979 A Student Guide to Chapter 622
The Mass. Egual Opportunity Regulations; Boston, MA. 1979.
(3) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Board of Education. Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation. Chapter 188 Listing of Grants to
Local Agencies FY 89; Boston MA. 1989.
(4) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Board of Education. Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Chapter 188 A Snapshot of Program
Implementation as of June 30, 1988; Boston MA. 1988.
(5) The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts. Special Commission on Unequal
Education Opportunity. 3rd. Interim Report of the Special Commission
Relative to the Commonwealth Pertaining to Elementary and Secondary
Education as They Relate to Unegual Educational Opportunities and
Services; House No. 5267. Boston MA. 1984.
(6) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. General Court Joint Committee on
Education. Special Report of the Committee on Education Relative to
Improving the Ouality of Public Education in the Commonwealth. House
No. 5000 Boston, MA. 1984.
(7) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education, Office of
Legislative Affairs. Legislative Proposals 1990. Boston, MA. 1990.
(8) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education, Office of
Legislative Affairs. Legislative Proposals 1991. Boston, MA. 1991.
(9) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education, School
Building Assistance Bureau. Chapter 645 of The Acts of 1948. Boston, MA.
1981.
(10) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education. Annual
Report 1985-86. Boston, MA. 1985.
(11) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education. Directory of
Massachusetts Education Laws. Boston, MA. 1975.
(12) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Senate. Mass. Financial
Commitment to Public Education In the Eighties. Boston MA. Oct. 1989.
(13) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Senate Ways and Means. Committee FY 1994
Policy Report #1; The Education Reform Act of 1993.
(14) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Education. Education Reform
Implementation Plan. Boston, MA. 1993.
97-4046-3
-66-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(15) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Board of Education. Five
Year Master Plan. Boston, MA. March 1995.
(16) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. House No.l. FY 95 Budget Submission of
Governor William F. Weld and Lieutenant Governor Arqeo Paul Celluci.
Boston MA. January 21, 1994.
(17) United States. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics
Administration. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of The United
States 1994. 114th. ed. Washington, DC: GPO, 1994.
(18) United States. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics
Administration. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of The United
States 1980. 101st. ed. Washington, DC: GPO, 1980.
(19) United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. 1994 Digest of Educational Statistics. 30th ed.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1994.
(20) United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. Projections of Education Statistics to 2005.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1994.
(21) United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. Federal Support for Education Fiscal Years 1980-92.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1993.
(22) United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research
and Improvement . Special Milk Program Evaluation and National School
Lunch Program Survey. 3rd Ed. Washington, DC: GPO, 1976.
(23) United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research
and Improvement . Measuring Up: Questions About State Roles in
Educational Accountability. Washington, DC: GPO, 1988.
(24) United States. General Accounting Office. Health, Education, and Human
Services Division. Early Childhood Centers: Services to Prepare Children
for School Often Limited. Washington, DC: GPO, March 1995.
(24a) United States. General Accounting Office. Health, Education, and Human
Services Division. Head Start: Information on Federal Funds Unspent by
Program Grantees. Washington, DC: GPO, December 1995.
(25) United States. General Accounting Office. Health, Education, and Human
Services Division. School Facilities: Americas' Schools Not Designed or
Equipped for 21st Century. Washington, DC: GPO, April 1995.
(25a) United States. General Accounting Office. Health, Education, and Human
Services Division. School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical
Support Varies. Washington, DC: GPO, November 1995.
(26) United States. General Accounting Office. Health, Education, and Human
Services Division. Federal Reorganization: Proposed Mergers Impact on
Existing Department of Education Activities. Washington, DC: GPO, June
1995.
97-4046-3
-67-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(27) United States. Department of Education. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services. Office of Special Education Programs Monitoring
Report; 1994 Review of the Massachusetts Department of Education.
Washington, DC: GPO, May 1995.
(27a) United States. Department of Education. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services. Review of Mass. Dept of Ed. Implementation of
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B) .
Washington, DC: GPO, May 2, 1995.
(28) United States. Department of Education. U.S. Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations. The Structure of State Aid to Elementary
and Secondary Education. Washington DC: GPO, December, 1990.
(29) The National Commission on Excellence in Education. "A Nation At Risk:
The Imperative For Educational Reform". Washington, DC: GPO, 1983.
(30) National Education Goals Panel. Background on the National Education
Goals Panel. Washington DC: GPO, 1993.
(31) Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. School Finance Reform; The First Two
Years . Boston, MA. December 1994.
(31a) Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The State's Investment in
Education; School Finance Reform 1993-1996. Boston, MA. June 1996.
(31b) Masslnsight. "Education Reform Monitoring Project; Superintendent Survey
Report" . Cambridge, MA. February 1996.
(32) City of Boston. Finance Commission. Study of the State of Boston High
Schools. Boston, MA. July 12, 1995
(32a) The National Education Commission on Time and Learning. "Prisoners of
Time" . Washington, DC: GPO, 1994.
(32b) The National Education Goals Panel. "Building a Nation of Learners".
Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.
(32c) The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). "Report Card on
American Education". Pallace Inc. Silver Spring, MD. 1994.
(32d) The National Conference of State Legislatures. "Voters and School
Finance; The Impact of Public Opinion". Washington, DC: GPO, 1993.
(32e) The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE). "Every Child A
Winner" . Worcester, MA. July 1991.
(32f) The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE). "Within Our
Reach: A Progress Report on the First Stage of Massachusetts' Education
Reform" . Worcester, MA. October 1995.
(32g) The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE). "Annual Report
1995-1996" . Worcester, MA. September 1996.
97-4046-3
-68-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(32h) The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE) . "Education
Reform Progress Report". Worcester, MA. October 1996.
(321) The National Conference of State Legislatures. "Better Education Through
Informed legislation". Washington, D.C.: GPO, January 1995.
(33) Baker, Daniel B. Political Quotations. Albany: Sage Hill Publishers,
Inc. 1994.
(34) Barret, Nanette. Education Source Book; The State Legislator's Guide for
Reform. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 1985.
(35) Bennett, William J. The De-valuing of America. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1992.
(36) Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1994.
(37) Boyer, Ernest L. Report Card On School Reform. New York, NY: Carnegie
Foundation, 1988.
(38) Bullard, Pamela. Taylor, Barbara O. Making School Reform Happen. Boston:
1992
(39) Deming, W. Edwards. The New Economics for Industry, Government,
Education. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993
(39a) Elmore, F. Richard. Paradox of Innovation in Education: Cycles of Reform
and The Resilience of Teaching. Cambridge: Harvard University,
Graduation School of Education. July 8, 1991.
(40) Evans, Thomas W. Mentors: Making A Difference In Our Public Schools.
Princeton, New Jersey: Peterson's Guides, 1992.
(41) Gerhart, Eugene C. Quote It! Memorable Legal Quotations. New York: Clark
Boardman Co., Ltd. 1969.
(42) Glenn, Charles Leslie Jr. The Myth of the Common School. Amherst: The
University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.
(43) Helms, James P. Dictionary of American Biography. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1960.
(43a) Hokanson, A. Rudolf, CFA. Educational Publishing: Who Will Buy. New
York, New York: CJ Lawrence, August 17, 1994.
(44) Koshel, Jeff. National Governors Association. Children's Policy
Information Project: The Role Played by Head Start in Serving
Disadvantaged Children Implications for States. February 1986.
(44a) Macmillan, Steven. The Macmillan Dictionary of Political Quotations.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1984.
97-4046-3
-69-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(45) Mayo, Bernard. Jefferson Himself. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
194246) Nasaw, David. Schooled to Order. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1979.
(46) Parker, Franklin. School Reform: Past and Present. Arizona: Northern
Arizona University, 1986.
(47) Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. School Choice, Charter
Schools, and Senate 1551: Questions and Answers. Pioneer Institute, 1994 .
(48) Rickover, H.G. Vice Admiral, U.S.N. Education and Freedom. New York:
E.P. Dutton, 1959.
(49) Rockwell, Theodore. The Rickover Effect; How One Man Made A Difference.
New York: Random House, 1992.
(50) Silber, John. Straight Shooting: What's Wrong With America and How to
Fix It. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1989.
(51) Spring, Joel. The American School 1642-1985. Cincinnati: Longman New
York London, 1986.
(52) Steel, Lauri; Levine, Roger. Educational Innovations in Multiracial
Contexts: The Growth of Magnet Schools in American Education. Palo
Alto: American Publishing. 1994.
(53) Thurow, Lester C. Head to Head; The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan.
Europe, and America. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992.
(54) Thurow, Lester C. The Zero-Sum Solution: Building A World-Class American
Economy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985
(55) Thurow, Lester C. Dangerous Currents: The State of Economics. New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1983
(56) Tyack, David. Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America,
1820-1980. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1982.
(57) Tyack, David & Larry Cuban. Tinkering toward Utopia Cambridge, London:
Harvard University Press, 1995.
(58) Walsh, Catherine E. School of Education University of Massachusetts at
Amherst. Horace Mann Bond Center for Equal Education. Yearbook of Egual
Education in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Univ. of Mass. Publication
Office, 1982.
(59) Washington, Valora; Oyemade, Jean U. Project Head Start. New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987.
(60) Wilson, Steve. Respectfully Quoted - A Dictionary of Quotations
Reguested From the Congressional Research Service. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1983.
(60a) Wyat, Doug. National Science Foundation. New York: William Morrow and
Co. Inc., 1995.
97-4046-3
-70-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
JOURNALS - PERIODICALS
(60b) Young, James; James Gibson; John Ivanevich. Fundamentals of
Management; 8th Edition, New York: Irwin Inc., 1992.
(60c) Young, Walter. The Sorting Machine-Educational Policy Since 1945; New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
(61) Anthony, Patricia. The Massachusetts Education Reform Act: What Is It
and Will it Work"? Viewpoints; 1994.
(62) Aubrey, Roger. "Reform in Schooling: Four Proposals on an Educational
Quest". Journal of Counseling and Development: December 1986.
(63) Avishai, Bernard. "What is Business 's Social Compact"? Harvard Business
Review: Vol.73, #1. 1994.
(63a) Barret, J. Michael. "The 220-Day School Year-News Coverage". Newsweek:
May 1995.
(64) Bell, Terrel H. "Reflections One Decade After A Nation At Risk". Phi
Delta Kappa: Vol.74, #10.
(64a) Boysen, Thomas C. "The Governors and Their Stone Age Schools".
Education Week: February 21, 1996.
(65) Bracey, Gerald W. "Goals 2000: Educate America Act Final". HR Magazine;
Vol. 39, Issue 1994.
(66) Buchser, Linda. "School Finance Reform: The Quest For Equal Educational
Opportunity". Viewpoints; December 16, 1982. "Educational Opportunity".
Viewpoints; December 16, 1982.
(67) Cawelti, Gordon. "Designing Curriculum Appropriate to the 21st
Century" . Association for the Advancement of International Education:
1993.
(68) Crosby, Emeral A. "The at Risk Decade". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol.75, #3.
1993.
(69) Crouse, James. "How Effective Are American Schools"? Phi Delta Kappa:
Vol.76, #2. 1994.
(70) Danzberger, Jacquelin P. "Governing the Nation's Schools: The Case for
Restructuring Local School Boards". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol.75, #5.
(71) DesDixon, R.G. "Future Schools and How to Get There from Here". Phi
Delta Kappa: Vol.75, #5. 1994.
(71a) Diegmueller, Karen. "Report Offers Ways To Improve History Standards".
Education Week: January 17, 1996.
(72) Doyle, Denis P. "The Role of Private Sector Management in Public
Education". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol. 76, #2. 1994
97-4046-3
-71-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(73) Drazen, Shelle. "Student Achievement and Family and Community Poverty:
Twenty Years of Education Reform". Viewpoints; April 1992.
(74) Education Commission of the States. "The Allocation of Money and Its
Impact on Education". Viewpoints; Denver, CO. September 1992.
(74a) Elam, Stanley M. ; Rose, Lowell C. ; Gallup, Alec M. "The 21st Annual
Gallup Phi Delta Kappa Poll of the Public Attitudes Toward the Public
Schools". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol.71, #1. 1987.
(75) Elam, Stanley M. ; Rose, Lowell C. ; Gallup, Alec M. "The 24th Annual
Gallup Phi Delta Kappa Poll of the Public Attitudes Toward the Public
Schools". Phi Delta Kappa: Vol.71, #1. 1989.
(76) Elam, Stanley M.; Lowell. Rose C. ; Gallup, Alec M. "The 26th Annual Phi
Delta Kappa/ Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public
Schools". Phi Delta Kappa: Vol.76, #1. 1994.
(77) Finn Jr., Chester E. "The Return of the Dinosaurs". National Review:
September 20, 1993.
(78) Frahm, Robert A. "The Failure of The Connecticut's Reform Plan: Lessons
for the Nation". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol.76, #2. 1994.
(79) Guthrie, James W. "Do Americas' Schools Need A Dow Jones Index"?
Clearing House: Vol.68, 1994.
(79a) Harp, Lonnie. "OCR Probes Bias Complaint Against Texas Exit Test".
Education Week: February 7, 1996.
(80) Henry, William. "Some Points to Make When you Talk About the Summit".
Viewpoint; June 1, 1990.
(81) Hixson, Judson. "Chicago School Reform Reinvents Central Support
System". Education and Urban Society; Vol.26, #3. 1994.
(82) Hudelson, Dale. "Roots of Reform". Vocational Education Journal;
Vol.67, #7. 1992.
(83) James, Thomas and Tyack, David. "Learning from Past Efforts to Reform
the High School". Phi Delta Kappa; February 1993.
(84) Kantor, Harvey. "Education, Social Reform, and the State: ESEA and
Federal Education Policy in the 1960 's". Viewpoints; University of
Chicago, 1991.
(85) Kirst, Michael W. "Strengths and Weaknesses of American Education". Phi
Delta Kappa; Vol.75, #5 1994.
(86) Kirst, Michael. "Recent State Education Reform in the United States;
Looking Backward and Forward". Viewpoints; University Council for
Educational Administration, 1988.
(87)
Kozol, Jonathan. "Budgets and Inequity". Washington News; Vol.3, #4
1994.
97-4046-3
-72-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(88) Kuntz, Phil. "Funding By Title". CO Researcher; Vol.4, #38, 1994.
(88a) Lawton, Millicent. "State Test Questions Focus of Renewed Scrutiny".
Education Week; January 31, 1996.
(88b) Lawton, Millicent. "Judge Upholds Ohio Test For Private Students".
Education Week; February 7, 1996.
(88c) Lawton, Millicent. "States Move to Toughen Exit Exams". Education Week;
February 21, 1996.
(88d) Lewis, Anne C. "An Overview of the Standards Movement". Phi Delta
Kappa; June 1, 1995.
(89) Long, Janice. "ACS Views on Education, Tax Exempt Bonds". Chemical &
Engineering News; Vol.12, Issue 4. 1993.
(90) Lunenburg, Fred. "Introduction; The Current Educational Reform Movement
- History, Progress to Date, and the Future". University of Louisville,
Viewpoint; 1992.
(90a) Magnusson, Paul. "John Dewey Meet Peter Drucker". Business Week;
January 8, 1996.
(91) McNeir, Gwennis. "Outcomes-Based Education; Tool for Restructuring".
Oregon School Study Council; 1993.
(92) Mumper, Michael. "Politics, Economics, and School Reform". Chicago,
Viewpoint; 1985.
(92a) Neill, Monty. "Assessment Reform at a Crossroads". Education Week;
February 28, 1996.
(92b) Odden, Allan. "Productive Discussions About the Education Dollar".
Education Week; February 7, 1996.
(93) Parker, Franklin and Betty. "A Historical Perspective on School
Reform". The Education Forum; 1995.
(94) Passow, A. Harry. "Whither (or Wither?) School Reform"? The University
Council for Educational Administration, Viewpoint ; 1988.
(95) Paul, Richard W. "Critical Thinking and Educational Reform; The Emerging
Revolution". Viewpoint; August 10, 1984.
(96) Peck, Brian T. "Learning Alike Thinking Alike"? The Economist; Vol.
331, Issue 7857. 1994.
(97) Pipho, Chris. "The Scent of the Future". Phi Delta Kappa; Vol.76, #1.
1994.
(98) Pitsch, Mark. "Summary of Improving Americas Schools". Education Week;
Vol.14, Issue 14. 1994.
97-4046-3
-73-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(98a) Ponessa, Jeanne. "Teachers Agree Stress Needed on 'the Basics'".
Education Week: February 6, 1996.
(99) Porter, Andrew C. "Assessing National Goals: Some Measurement
Dilemmas". Viewpoint; October 21, 1990.
(100) Radenbaugh, Byron F. "Democratizing Educational Research or Why is Our
Nation Still at Risk After Ten Years Of Educational Reform". Phi Delta
Kappa ; Vol.74, #10.
(101) Reese, William • J. "History of Organizational Structure and
Governance". Encyclopedia of Educational Research; Vol.3. 1992.
(101a) Rifkin, Jeremy. "Rethinking the Mission of American Education".
Education Week; January 31, 1996.
(102) Riley, Richard. "Educating the Workforce of the Future". Harvard
Business Review; Vol.73, #2. 1994.
(103) Salmon, Paul B. "Strengthening America Through Stronger Education".
American Education Journal; Vol.19 #3.
(104) Schnuth, Mary Lee. "Historical Perspective of Educational Reform".
Viewpoint; February 1986.
(105) Scott, Matthew S. "Reinventing American Schools". Black Enterprise;
Vol.24, Issue 2 1993.
(106) Southern Regional Education Board. "Looking Back at a Decade of
Educational Improvement; What is Different Today? Why Are We
Disappointed? What Are We Learning"? Viewpoint; Atlanta, Georgia.
1993.
(107) Stone, Nan. "Does Business Have Any Business in Education". Harvard
Business Review; Vol.70, #2. 1991.
(108) Strickland, Charles E. "Sputnik Reform Revisited". Educational
Studies; Vol.16, Issue 2. 1985.
(109) Tilley, Arthur F. "Are We Spending Enough On Americas Schools"?
Readers Digest; Feb. 15, 1992.
(110) Tyack, David. "Public School Reform: Policy Talk and Institutional
Practice". American Journal of Education; Vol.100, #1. 1992.
(111) Tyack, David. "Public School Reform: Policy Talk and Institutional
Practice". Viewpoint ; Chicago, 1991.
(112) Walters, Johnathan. "School Funding; Should Affluent Districts Be
Forced To Aid Poorer Neighbors"? CQ Researcher; Vol.3, #32 1993.
(113) Warren, Donald. "Original Intents: Public Schools as Civic Education".
Theory Into Practice; Vol.27, #4. 1988.
97-4046-3
-74-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(113a) Wingert, Pat. "Did Washington Hate Gays"? Newsweek: October 16, 1995.
(114) Winter, Janet. "Educational Reform". Viewpoints; Vol.10, 1988.
(115) Wolf thai, Maurice. "We Won't Reform Schools by Turning Back".
Educational Leadership; September, 1986.
(116) Young, Owen D. "Dedication Address: For the Baker Buildings at
Harvard". Harvard Business Review; Vol.5, #4. 1927.
(117) Kantrowitz, Barbara.; Wingert, Pat. "An 'F' In World Competition".
Newsweek; February 17, 1992.
(118) Kiester jr., Edwin. "The G.I. Bill May Be the Best Deal Ever Made By
Uncle Sam". Smithsonian: Vol.25, #8.
(119) Smith, Steve. "Losing an Edge". Time; July 20, 1992. Vol.140, #3.
(119a) Tochett, Thomas. "Why Teachers". U.S. News & World Report; February
26, 1996.
(119b) Viadero, Debra. "Study Finds Variations in Math, Science Tests in &
Nations". Education Week; January 10, 1996.
NEWSPAPERS
(120) Boston Globe; Articles on education reform from 12/15/91 to 4/10/96.
Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the newspaper.
A total of 145 articles to date.
(121) Boston Herald: Articles on education reform from 4/8/95 to 4/13/96.
Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the newspaper.
A total of 23 articles to date.
(122) Education Today: Newspaper published by the Department of Education
from 5/93 to 6/95.
(123) Investor's Business Daily: Articles on education reform from 8/22/95
to 8/22/95. Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in
the newspaper. A total of one article to date.
(124) L.A. Times: Articles on education reform from 11/28/94 to 3/17/95.
Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the newspaper.
A total of two articles to date.
(125) Middlesex News; Articles on education reform from 5/13/95 to
5/13/95. Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the
newspaper. A total of one article to date.
(126) Patriot Ledger; Articles on education reform from 5/15/95 to
9/14/95. Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the
newspaper. A total of three articles to date.
(127)
Project Education Reform; Time for Results. Newspaper newsletter
distributed by the United States Department of Education, issues dated
97-4046-3
-75-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
May 1987, September 1987, and December 1987.
(128) School Law News: Articles on education reform from 3/24/95 to
3/24/95. Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the
newspaper. A total of one article to date.
(129) Wall Street Journal; Articles on education reform from 1/4/93 to
3/29/95. Collecting articles on ongoing basis as they appear in the
newspaper. A total of 44 articles to date.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
(130) United States. Laws of the 85th Congress-2nd Session. National Defense
Education Act of 1958. Public Law 85-864; 72 Statute.
(131) United States. Laws of the 88th Congress-2nd Session. Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964. Public Law 88-452. 78th Statute.
(132) United States. Laws of the 89th Congress-2nd Session. Elementary and
Secondary Education Act Of 1965. Public Law 89-10; 79 Statute.
(133) United States. Laws of the 103rd Congress-2nd Session. Goals 2000;
Educate America Act. Public Law 103-227; 108th Statute.
STATE LEGISLATION
(134) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act to Encourage the
Establishment of Regional and Consolidated Public Schools and to
Provide Financial Assistance to Cities and Towns in the Construction
of School Buildings. Chapter 645 of the General Laws of the Acts of
1948.
(135) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act to Improve and Extend
Educational Facilities in the Commonwealth. Chapter 572 of the General
Laws of the Acts of 1965.
(136) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Imposing A Temporary Tax on
Retail Sales, and A Temporary Excise upon The Storage , Use or Other
Consumption, of Certain Tangible Personal Property, Revising and
Imposing Certain Other Taxes and Excises, Establishing the Local Aid
Fund, and Providing for the Distribution of Funds Therefrom to Cities
and Towns. Chapter 14 of the General Laws of the Acts of 1966.
(137) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Providing for the
Establishment and Implementation of Programs in Transitional Bilingual
Education in the Public Schools of the Commonwealth, With
Reimbursement by the Commonwealth to Cities, Towns and School
Districts to Finance the Additional Costs of Such Programs. Chapter
1005 of the General Laws of the Acts of 1971.
(138)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act to Prohibit Discrimination
in Public Schools. Chapter 622 of the General Laws of 1971.
97-4046-3
-76-
APPENDIX F (Continued)
(139) The Conunonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Further Regulating Programs
for Children Reguiring Special Education and Providing Reimbursement
Therefore. Chapter 766 of the General Laws of the Acts of 1972.
(140) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Regulating the Issuance of
Educational Certificates and Establishing A Commission for the
Division of Educational Personnel. Chapter 847 of the General Laws of
1973.
(141) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Amending the Racial
Imbalance Law. Chapter 636 of the General Laws of 1974.
(142) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Making Appropriations for
the Fiscal Year 1979 . For the Maintenance of the Departments, Boards,
Commissions. Institutions and Certain Activities of the Commonwealth
for Interest, Sinking Fund and Serial Bond Reguirements and for
Certain Permanent Improvements. Chapter 367 of the General Laws of
1978.
(143) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Improving the Public Schools
of the Commonwealth. Chapter 188 of the General Laws of 1985.
(144) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Enhancing the Teaching
Profession and Recognizing Educational Achievement. Chapter 727 of the
General Laws of 1987.
(145) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Making Corrective Changes to
the Law Relative to Teacher Enhancement. Chapter 7 of the General Laws
of 1988.
(146) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Establishing the
Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. Chapter 71 of the General
Laws of 1993.
(147) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Jami McDuffy vs. The Secretary of
Education. Supreme Judicial Court, June 1993.
(148) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Selected Milestones in Education
Reform in Massachusetts: Court Decisions. Supreme Judicial Court, June
1995.
(149) The United States Department of Education. Office of Special Education
Program Monitoring Report. 1994 Review of the Massachusetts Department
of Education's Implementation of Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Educational Act, May 1995.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11